Summary
This document is a Recommended Disposition from a United States Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Arkansas addressing a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim. The court analyzes whether the plaintiff satisfied the exhaustion requirement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act by reviewing his grievance filings. Concluding that the plaintiff failed to properly appeal his grievances through all required steps, the magistrate recommends granting the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing the claim without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the ADC grievance process was unavailable to Parkins under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
- Whether Parkins exhausted available administrative remedies before filing his § 1983 conditions-of-confinement claim.
- Whether Barden was entitled to summary judgment and dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
Holdings
- The ADC grievance process was available to Parkins because he received Step One responses and could have appealed those responses, or the lack of a response, to Step Two.
- Parkins failed to exhaust available administrative remedies because he did not appeal his relevant Step One grievances through the ADC grievance procedure before filing suit.
- Barden was entitled to summary judgment, and Parkins's claim against him should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Key quotations
“Importantly, “it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper exhaustion.”” (Discussion, Part A)
“On this record, therefore, Parkins has not shown that administrative remedies were unavailable to him. To the contrary—Parkins has shown that he did not avail himself of the Step Two remedy.” (Discussion, Part F)
“Because Parkins failed to utilize the available grievance process, he, thereby, failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies, as required by the PLRA.” (Conclusion)
Factual background
Parkins, an Arkansas Division of Correction prisoner, alleged that in June 2020 Barden and another officer placed him in a small cage for two days without clothes or adequate bathroom breaks. Parkins submitted two Step One grievances dated June 29, 2020, but neither included a completed Step Two appeal. ADC grievance records indicated that Parkins submitted no Step Two appeals in 2020, and he offered no explanation for failing to appeal or evidence that prison officials prevented him from doing so.
Procedural history
Parkins filed a pro se § 1983 complaint alleging that prison officials confined him in a small cage for two days without clothing or adequate bathroom breaks. The court permitted conditions-of-confinement claims against Barden and Sykes in their individual capacities, denied Barden's motion to dismiss, and dismissed the claims against Sykes without prejudice for lack of service. Barden then moved for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing the claim against Barden without prejudice; the recommendation was submitted to District Judge Brian S. Miller for review and possible adoption.