Justin Cornelius Smith v. Ryan Staples

Smith v. Staples · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · February 3, 2026 · No. 3:24-CV-1941

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants defendant Ryan Staples’s motion for summary judgment in a prisoner civil rights action. The court concludes that Justin Cornelius Smith failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections grievance process and did not show that the process was unavailable. The case is ordered closed.

Court
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Writing for the Court
Malachy E. Mannion
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
Decision date
February 3, 2026
Docket number
3:24-CV-1941
Procedural posture
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the prisoner plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court granted the motion and directed that the case be closed.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must view the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations. Under the local rule, facts in a movant's statement of material facts are deemed admitted when the opposing party fails to respond.
Precedential value
unpublished, nonprecedential district court memorandum
Disposition
other

Topics

summary judgmentprisoners rightssection 1983civil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureprisoner civil rightsadministrative exhaustion

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Staples was entitled to summary judgment because Smith failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies before filing his prisoner civil-rights action.
  2. Whether Smith demonstrated that the prison grievance process was unavailable and therefore excused from the exhaustion requirement.

Holdings

  1. Staples was entitled to summary judgment because Smith did not appeal any grievance through final review by SOIGA and therefore failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies.
  2. Summary judgment was proper because the undisputed record, including the facts deemed admitted under Local Rule 56.1, showed that Smith failed to complete the required administrative appeals.

Key quotations

The burden accordingly shifts to Smith to show that the grievance process was unavailable to him. (Discussion)
For the foregoing reasons, the court will grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment and close this case. (Conclusion)

Factual background

Smith alleged that personnel at SCI-Dallas denied him needed mental-health treatment from April through July 2024. He filed approximately thirty grievances between April 2024 and early January 2025, but did not appeal any grievance through final review by the Secretary's Office of Inmate Grievances and Appeals. Smith offered no response or evidence disputing those facts or showing that the grievance process was unavailable.

Procedural history

Smith filed the prisoner civil-rights complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging denial of mental-health treatment. The case was transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where the court dismissed all defendants except Ryan Staples for failure to state a claim. Staples moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust; the court converted the motion to summary judgment because resolution required consideration of materials outside the pleadings. Smith did not respond to Staples's statement of material facts or motion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…