Keair Boyd v. Tanisha Henry, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted defendants’ unopposed motion for summary judgment in Keair Boyd’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The court held that Boyd failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act because his grievance was repeatedly rejected and he did not cure the identified deficiencies. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.

Holdings

1. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed record showed that Boyd did not complete the required administrative grievance process before bringing his § 1983 action.
2. Boyd did not establish that the grievance process was unavailable to him.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Boyd failed to properly exhaust available administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
2. Whether the grievance process was unavailable to Boyd because prison policies allegedly delayed or impeded his ability to pursue the grievance.

Disposition

other