Lloyd v. Cain
3:15-cv-01651
| W.D. La. | Apr 29, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Michael Ray Lloyd, an MPDC inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging denial of medical care by Nurse Kinard and excessive force by several deputies based on events of August 5, 2014.
- Defendants Deputy Jim Cerda and Nurse Kinard moved for summary judgment, asserting Lloyd failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
- MPDC had a three-step Administrative Remedy Procedure (grievance to Warden, Assistant Warden review, Sheriff appeal); inmates could proceed to the next step if no timely response was provided.
- Defendants produced an affidavit showing Lloyd never submitted a grievance about these claims; Lloyd did not file evidence controverting that showing or an opposition to the motion.
- Lloyd’s unsworn allegations that he filed a grievance were insufficient to create a factual dispute under Rule 56; he also admitted he never completed all steps because he “never received a response.”
- Magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment and dismissing Lloyd’s claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PLRA exhaustion requirement bars suit | Lloyd contends he filed a grievance (or was impeded) | Cerda & Kinard argue Lloyd never filed any grievance and did not exhaust ARP | Court: Lloyd failed to exhaust; dismissal warranted |
| Whether MPDC grievance process was available | Lloyd implies process was ineffective or he didn’t get responses | Defendants show an existing three-step ARP and procedure to proceed if no response | Court: ARP was available and applicable |
| Whether unsworn allegations suffice to create a dispute | Lloyd’s complaint alleges he filed grievance (unsworn) | Defendants rely on affidavit showing none filed; Rule 56 requires admissible evidence | Court: Unsworn assertions insufficient to defeat summary judgment |
| Appropriate remedy for failure to exhaust | Lloyd sought to proceed in federal court | Defendants seek dismissal of claims | Court: Dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust (PLRA requires pre-filing exhaustion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (PLRA requires proper exhaustion before suit)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
- Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (no futility exception to PLRA exhaustion)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s burden on summary judgment and nonmovant must produce evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact)
- Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; evidentiary protections when court considers extra‑pleading evidence)