James v. Dicus
4:11-cv-00901
| E.D. Ark. | Dec 5, 2012Background
- Donn ie B. James, an ADC inmate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging race discrimination and due process violations related to a 2009 disciplinary proceeding.
- Defendant Brenda Dicus allegedly charged James after investigators found him with inmate Spears repairing a radio; James denied intent to start a fire and claimed no smoke was detected.
- At the disciplinary hearing, Minor found James guilty of two rule violations; James’s class status dropped from IC to IV and his contact visits were suspended for one year; Spears was punished similarly but with milder class reduction.
- Plaintiff later alleged retaliation and discrimination against Howell, Minor, Gibson, Norris, and Dicus; the court previously allowed some claims to proceed and dismissed others.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds under the Prison Litigation Reform Act; James argued full exhaustion through disciplinary appeal.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment, concluding James did not exhaust administrative remedies for any named defendant and thus his claims should be dismissed without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did James exhaust administrative remedies under §1983? | James fully exhausted via appeal of disciplinary; ADC policy prohibits grieving disciplinary matters, but retaliation claims could be pursued. | James did not fully exhaust any claims against named defendants; only grievance WR-09-0251 was exhausted and it did not cover Dicus or others. | No; unused claims were not exhausted; dismissal without prejudice. |
| Are discrimination and retaliation claims barred for lack of exhaustion? | Full appeal suffices for exhaustion, including retaliation and discrimination aspects. | Exhaustion not shown for Dicus, Norris, Gibson, Howell, Minor; procedural bar applies. | Barred; claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether exhaustion failure warrants dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice? | Exhaustion should not bar claims exhausted through disciplinary process. | Exhaustion not shown; dismiss without prejudice to allow potential refiling. | Dismissal without prejudice. |
| Should the §1983 claims be dismissed due to failure to exhaust and underlying procedural barriers? | Discrimination and retaliation claims raised; some basis exists for relief. | Exhaustion failure sinks §1983 claims; no reversible error on merits. | GRANTED; claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| Should the Arkansas Civil Rights Act state-law claim be addressed by the court? | State-law claim should be considered by the court. | Court should decline jurisdiction over AR Act claim. | Decline jurisdiction; AR Act claim dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required before §1983 action)
- Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2001) (definition of 'available remedies' and exhaustion)
- Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (exhaustion exceptions when officials block remedies)
- Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339 (8th Cir. 2005) (§1997e(a) exhaustion requirements)
- Lyon v. Vande Krol, 305 F.3d 806 (8th Cir. 2002) (inmate's subjective belief about availability not controlling)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard—burden on movant)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (material facts and genuine dispute standard for SJ)
- Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc; weighing evidence on summary judgment)