Torrey v. Vitacor, 4:24-cv-00020

Plaintiff Clifton T. Torrey, Sr., an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging inadequate medical care and related constitutional violations.
Claim centers on delays in diagnosis and treatment of severe throat issues ultimately discovered to be cancer.
Claims also include alleged failures related to special diet provision during cancer treatment, replacement of orthopedic shoes and leg braces, treatment for back injuries, and completion of chemotherapy.
Defendants (VitalCore, MDOC officials Burl Cain and Laura Reed) filed summary judgment motions arguing Torrey failed to exhaust prison administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
Only Torrey's claim regarding delay in cancer diagnosis and treatment was pursued through the full Administrative Remedy Program (ARP) grievance process; other claims were not fully or properly exhausted.
The court granted summary judgment on all claims except the cancer delay claim against VitalCore, dismissing the remainder without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of remedies for cancer diagnosis delay	ARP grievance was filed and completed for the delay in diagnosing and treating throat/cancer condition	VitalCore: Only this claim was properly exhausted, so can proceed	Court agrees; only this claim survives
Exhaustion for other medical claims (diet, shoes, chemo, back)	Submitted multiple grievances covering various issues	Defendants: None of these additional claims were pursued through the complete ARP process	Court agrees; claims dismissed without prejudice
Claims against Burl Cain and Laura Reed	Sued for failures in chemo payment and diet provision	Cain/Reed: Not named or involved in any exhausted grievance; allegations arose after grievance was filed	Court agrees; claims against them dismissed
Compliance with PLRA	Claims are serious and should proceed	Defendants: Strict exhaustion under PLRA mandatory regardless of relief type or claim substance	Court enforces strict exhaustion; dismisses non-compliant claims

Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion under PLRA is mandatory and serves as a threshold issue)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (proper, procedural exhaustion of prison remedies required)
Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001) (exhaustion required even if administrative process cannot grant requested relief)
Gonzalez v. Seal, 702 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2012) (PLRA exhaustion is a precondition and mandatory)
Dillon v. Rogers, 596 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2010) (court may resolve factual disputes over exhaustion)