Gillum v. Yates, 6:19-cv-00130

Plaintiff Everett Jermaine Gillum, an Oklahoma DOC inmate formerly at Davis Correctional Facility (a CoreCivic private prison), sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming his 15-inch Hiteker TV was stolen on December 26, 2018 when officers moved him to segregation and would not let him pack his property.
CoreCivic/DCF Policy 14-6 governs lost/damaged/stolen property claims at the facility; claims must be filed on a 14-6D form within seven days and can be appealed to the warden/administrator as the final authority.
Gillum submitted a Property Claim Form dated January 17, 2019 asserting the TV was stolen; DCF investigated and concluded he did not arrive with a television.
Institution records and a December 26, 2018 personal property receipt signed by Gillum indicated "no electronics" and specifically that he did not have a TV; he had earlier received a box marked "no electronics."
Warden Yates reviewed and recommended denial on February 12, 2019; Gillum refused to sign the denial form and did not submit the required appeal to the warden/administrator. He also did not respond to the defendants’ summary judgment motion.
The court considered the Martinez report and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground Gillum failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gillum exhausted administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for his lost TV claim	Gillum claims officers prevented him from packing property and his TV was stolen when moved to segregation; he filed a property claim seeking recovery	DCF/CoreCivic policy required timely claim and an appeal to the warden; records show Gillum did not appeal the denial and property receipts show no TV arrived	Court held Gillum failed to exhaust available administrative remedies; summary judgment for defendants granted
Whether the Court should reach the merits of the Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment property deprivation claim	Gillum alleges constitutional violations from loss of property and defendants' failure to replace or reimburse	Defendants argued exhaustion is a prerequisite and the court need not address merits if remedies were not exhausted	Court did not reach merits; claim dismissed on exhaustion grounds via summary judgment

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (PLRA requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies)
Jernigan v. Stuchell, 304 F.3d 1030 (10th Cir.) (inmate who does not complete grievance process is barred)
Yousef v. Reno, 254 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir.) (PLRA exhaustion principles)
Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir.) (special report procedure for prisoner civil rights complaints)