James P. Abrams v. David Paul, Warden, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky grants the defendants’ converted motion for summary judgment in James P. Abrams’s civil-rights action alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The court concludes that Abrams failed to exhaust available Bureau of Prisons administrative remedies and dismisses the claims without prejudice; his motion to amend is denied as moot.

Holdings

1. Defendants were entitled to summary judgment because there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Abrams failed to fully exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing suit.
2. Abrams's exhaustion obligation was not excused on the ground that his pursuit of administrative remedies was intertwined with his deliberate-indifference claims.
3. The rejection of Abrams's grievances as non-sensitive did not excuse exhaustion because he failed to use the available procedures to appeal the rejection to the General Counsel or submit the grievances to the Warden.
4. Abrams did not establish that administrative remedies were unavailable because the process was opaque, operated as a dead end, or was thwarted by machination, intimidation, or misrepresentation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Abrams failed to fully exhaust available BOP administrative remedies before filing his civil-rights claims.
2. Whether Abrams's exhaustion obligation was excused because his pursuit of administrative remedies was allegedly intertwined with his substantive claims.
3. Whether the BOP administrative remedy process was unavailable because the Regional Office rejected Abrams's grievances as non-sensitive or because the process was opaque, a dead end, or obstructed by prison officials.

Disposition

dismissed