Guilty v. Davies
4:16-cv-00033
N.D. Miss.May 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lenroy Guilty, Jr., an MDOC inmate, sued seven correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force during a November 26, 2015 contraband search.
- After a Spears hearing, the magistrate recommended dismissing claims against Officers Davies and Griffin for lack of participation and allowing claims to proceed against Clark, Harris, Harrison, Honeycup, and Paige.
- Defendants Clark, Honeycup, and Paige moved for summary judgment asserting Guilty failed to exhaust MDOC administrative remedies before filing suit.
- Submitted MDOC grievance records indicated Guilty did not complete the grievance process until April 22, 2016—after he filed his federal complaint on February 23, 2016.
- Court notices and scheduling orders mailed to Guilty were returned as undeliverable; he had been warned twice to keep the court informed of his address.
- The Court adopted the magistrate’s R&R, granted summary judgment for Clark, Honeycup, and Paige for failure to exhaust, and dismissed the remaining claims against Harris and Harrison for failure to prosecute. Davies and Griffin were dismissed for failure to state a claim. Final order dated May 12, 2017.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-filing exhaustion under the PLRA | Guilty contends his claims proceed in federal court (alleges use of force) | Defendants assert PLRA requires exhaustion before filing; Guilty’s grievance completed after complaint | Court held PLRA requires pre-filing exhaustion; summary judgment granted for defendants (claims dismissed) |
| Participation of certain officers (Davies, Griffin) | Guilty initially named them in complaint | Defendants/record showed they did not participate in the alleged assault | Court adopted magistrate R&R and dismissed Davies and Griffin for failure to state a claim |
| Failure to maintain current address / prosecute | Guilty did not update court with new address despite warnings | Defendants relied on returned mail and prior warnings | Court dismissed remaining claims against Harris and Harrison for failure to prosecute |
Key Cases Cited
- Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) (procedures for screening pro se prisoner complaints)
- Douglass v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard for reviewing magistrate report and recommendation)
- Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (pre-filing exhaustion under PLRA is mandatory)
- Haverda v. Hays County, 723 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment standard articulation)
- Deshotel v. Wal-Mart La., L.L.C., 850 F.3d 742 (5th Cir. 2017) (existence of genuine disputes of material fact)
- Moss v. Harris County, 851 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2017) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Lewis v. Hardy, [citation="248 F. App'x 589"] (5th Cir. 2007) (failure to update address after warning may justify dismissal for failure to prosecute)