Johnson v. Caskey, 4:08-cv-00114

Johnson, a state inmate at EMCF, sues EMCF officials under §1983 for multiple prison conditions (property loss, inadequate clothing, hot water, hygiene, insects).
Cross-motions for summary judgment: Johnson seeks relief; Defendants seek dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C. §1997(e) (PLRA).
ARS records show Johnson filed nine ARP requests 2008–2009; completed only two ARP procedures (EMCF-08-321 and EMCF-09-1315) with full three-step completion and MDOC Commissioner certification.
Six ARP grievances were withdrawn by Johnson before completion; one was rejected on technical grounds; most concerns include food issues, clothing, housing, and RVR challenges.
Birdsall’s affidavit shows delays only when Johnson voluntarily withdrew or when backlogged due to pending grievances; no evidence excusing non-exhaustion was credible.
Court recommends denying Johnson’s motion, granting Defendants’ motion, and dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust; standard notices regarding objections follow.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies for the claims.	Johnson argues ARP irregularities excuse exhaustion.	Defendants contend no complete exhaustion; several ARP requests not fully processed.	No complete exhaustion; exhaustion not shown for claims.
Whether any exhaustion exception applies (irregularities, backlog, or other due process concerns).	Johnson cites backlog and missing replies to excuse exhaustion.	Backlog reasons are insufficient; delays due to voluntary withdrawals or backlog do not establish excusable failure.	No applicable exhaustion exception proven.

Shah v. Quinlin, 901 F.2d 1241 (5th Cir. 1990) (irregularities in the administrative process may excuse exhaustion)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
Holloway v. Gunnell, 685 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1982) (administrative remedies are exhausted when time limits expire if officials do not interfere)
Powe v. Ennis, 177 F.3d 393 (5th Cir. 1999) (time limits for response can trigger exhaustion)
Underwood v. Wilson, 151 F.3d 292 (5th Cir. 1998) (considerations for exhaustion when remedies are unavailable)
Rourke v. Thompson, 11 F.3d 47 (5th Cir. 1993) (backlog exception recognized as an exception to exhaustion)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (pre-deprivation remedies; state post-deprivation remedies may apply)