Stone v. Owens
3:12-cv-00091
S.D. Ga.May 15, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Duncan Stone, an inmate at Wheeler Correctional Facility, sues Dr. Mark Peacock and health services administrator Clark under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequate dental care and denture delays.
- Defendants argue Stone failed to exhaust his administrative remedies at Wheeler before filing suit and that Clark is not subject to supervisory liability.
- Stone filed a grievance regarding dental issues at Georgia State Prison (GS Prison) and appealed it while at Wheeler, but did not file a Wheeler grievance about dental care.
- Defendants contend exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that wrong-channel or incomplete exhaustion does not satisfy the rule.
- The court analyzes whether Plaintiff properly exhausted under the SOP and PLRA before suit, concluding he did not exhaust Wheeler remedies.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting summary judgment for Clark and Peacock due to failure to exhaust.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stone properly exhausted administrative remedies regarding Clark and Peacock | Stone exhausted via GS Prison grievance appealed at Wheeler | Exhaustion not completed at Wheeler; wrong facility; not properly filed | No proper exhaustion under PLRA; grant of summary judgment affirmed |
| Does Stone’s Wheeler grievance requirement apply given prior GS Prison grievance | GS Prison grievance suffices because it related to same dental issues | Grievance at a different facility does not satisfy Wheeler exhaustion rules | Grievance at GS Prison does not exhaust Wheeler claims; not adequate under PLRA |
| Whether Clark is subject to supervisory liability given PLRA exhaustion | Clark should be liable due to awareness of dental issues | Supervisory liability requires other showing; exhaustion bars claims | Grant of summary judgment on exhaustion grounds; Clark not addressed on supervisory liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (U.S. 2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to prison conditions actions)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (proper exhaustion requires pursuing all steps and deadlines)
- Johnson v. Meadows, 418 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir. 2005) (PLRA exhaustion must be proper and complete)
- Higginbottom v. Carter, 223 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2000) (per curiam; exhaustion doctrine explained)
- Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008) (failure to exhaust at new facility defeats claims)