From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glover v. Black

United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia
Sep 15, 2021
4:21-cv-00003-CDL-MSH (M.D. Ga. Sep. 15, 2021)

Opinion

4:21-cv-00003-CDL-MSH

09-15-2021

MICHAEL A. GLOVER, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN REAGAN BLACK, et al., Defendants.


REPORT AND RECOMMMENDATION

STEPHEN HYLES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, an inmate currently confined at Rutledge State Prison (“RSP”) in Columbus, Georgia, filed a pro se complaint (ECF No. 1) seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46). For the hereinbelow reasons, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion be denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff's claims arise from his incarceration at RSP, where he was attacked by inmate Wayne Munson on September 28, 2020. 2d Recast Compl. 5, ECF No. 23. According to Plaintiff, prior to the attack, he contacted authorities outside of RSP to express his concerns over Defendant Black's response to Covid-19. Id. Plaintiff states that when Defendant Black learned of this, he retaliated against Plaintiff by, inter alia, concocting an attack through inmate Munson. Id. Plaintiff contends he and inmate Munson previously conflicted when they were housed in the same dorm. Id. According to Plaintiff, inmate Munson filed a grievance against him through Defendant Byrd, the grievance coordinator. Id. At or around the same time, Plaintiff contends inmate Munson was “so ‘high' off of the drug ‘meth' that he put himself on the door” resulting in his placement in segregation. 2d Recast Compl. 5. About a week before the attack, however, Defendant Cofield transferred inmate Munson back into Plaintiff's dorm. Id. at 5-6.

On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff states inmate Munson accused fellow inmates of stealing drugs from his cell. Id. at 6. When Plaintiff emerged from his cell, he contends inmate Munson further accused him of stealing the drugs, which Plaintiff denied. Id. According to Plaintiff, inmate Munson then said to him “yeah, I came for you” and proceeded to attack Plaintiff. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff states inmate Munson stabbed him under his right eye and in his upper, left back. Id. at 8.

The Court received Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1) on January 7, 2021, and his recast complaint (ECF No. 8) on February 23, 2021. The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a second recast complaint on April 7, 2021, see Order 5-7, April 7, 2021, ECF No. 21, which the Court received on April 22, 2021 (ECF No. 23). After preliminary review of Plaintiff's second recast complaint, only Plaintiff's claims of retaliation against Defendant Black and failure to protect against Defendants Black, Byrd, and Cofield remain. Order & R. 4-6, May 21, 2021, ECF No. 31; Order 1, July 29, 2021, ECF No. 52 (adopting R. & R.). Defendants filed their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46) on July 20, 2021. The Court received Plaintiff's response (ECF No. 54) on July 30, 2021, and his first brief in opposition (ECF No. 55) on August 5, 2021. Plaintiff filed two additional briefs in opposition (ECF Nos. 58, 59) on August 9, 2021. Defendants' motion to dismiss is now ripe for review.

DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his failure to protect claim. Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 2-6, ECF No. 46-2. The Court recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss be denied.

I. Exhaustion Standard

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title . . . by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “[W]hen a state provides a grievance procedure for its prisoners, as Georgia does here, an inmate alleging harm suffered from prison conditions must file a grievance and exhaust the remedies available under that procedure before pursuing a § 1983 lawsuit.” Brown v. Sikes, 212 F.3d 1205, 1207 (11th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). “To exhaust administrative remedies in accordance with the PLRA, prisoners must properly take each step within the administrative process. If their initial grievance is denied, prisoners must then file a timely appeal.” Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1378 (11th Cir. 2008) (citation and punctuation omitted).

The argument that a plaintiff has failed to satisfy section 1997e(a) is properly raised in a motion to dismiss. Bryant, 530 F.3d at 1375 (“[E]xhaustion should be decided on a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss[.]”). Further, since dismissal for failure to exhaust is not an adjudication on the merits, the Court can resolve factual disputes using evidence from outside the pleadings. Id. at 1376. “[D]eciding a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a two-step process.” Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082 (11th Cir. 2008). “First, the court looks to the factual allegations in the defendant's motion to dismiss and those in the plaintiff's response, and if they conflict, takes the plaintiff's versions of the facts as true.” Id. If, taking plaintiff's facts as being true, the defendant is entitled to dismissal for failure to exhaust, then the complaint should be dismissed. Id. “If the complaint is not subject to dismissal at the first step . . . the court then proceeds to make specific findings in order to resolve the disputed factual issues related to exhaustion.” Id. The defendant bears the burden of proof during this second step. Id.

II. First Step: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue the Georgia Department of Corrections (“GDC”) maintains a grievance procedure allowing inmates to raise issues at the administrative level, but Plaintiff failed to file a grievance concerning the incidents underlying his failure to protect claim. Br. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss 2-6. Plaintiff, however, contends he filed and appealed two grievances concerning these events and Defendants' involvement therein. Pl.'s 1st Br. 1, ECF No. 55; Pl.'s 1st Br. Ex. 1, at 2-3, ECF No. 55-1; Pl.'s 2d Br. 1-2, ECF No. 58; Pl.'s 3d Br. 1-2, ECF No. 59. Because at the first stage of the exhaustion analysis the Court must accept Plaintiff's version of the facts as true, Plaintiff's complaint cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust at this first step. Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082; see also Dollar v. Coweta Cnty. Sheriff Office, 446 Fed.Appx. 248, 251-52 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

III. Second Step: Factual Findings

Since Plaintiff's complaint was not dismissed at the first step, the Court can make factual findings relating to exhaustion. Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082. The Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden and recommends that their motion be denied on this ground.

GDC has promulgated Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) regarding grievances which apply to all inmates in GDC custody. Singleton Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 1, at 7-25, ECF No. 46-1. The SOPs mandate that an inmate must follow a two-step process in order to exhaust his remedies: (1) file an original grievance no later than ten days from the date of the incident giving rise to the grievance; and (2) file an appeal to the Central Office. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. 1, at 14-21. If a grievance is rejected by the warden without processing, a notice of the rejection must be provided to the inmate. Id. ¶¶ 10-13, Ex. 1, at 15-16. The inmate may then appeal the rejection to the central office within seven days. Id. ¶ 17, Ex. 1, at 20. If a grievance is processed, “[t]he Warden has 40 calendar days from the date the [inmate] gave the Grievance Form to the Counselor to deliver the decision to the [inmate].” Id. ¶ 16, Ex. 1, at 17. An inmate may file an appeal after the warden issues a decision or after the time allowed for the warden to make his decision expires. Id., Ex. 1, at 20.

Defendants argue Plaintiff failed to file a grievance concerning the incidents underlying his failure to protect claim. Br. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss 2-6. In support, they have attached the declaration of RSP Grievance Coordinator Tonjia Singleton, and Plaintiff's grievance history (ECF No. 46-1). As explained above, Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to protect him from an attack by a fellow inmate on September 28, 2020, during his confinement at RSP. Recast Compl. 5-6. Plaintiff's grievance history shows he filed two grievances on September 29, 2020. Singleton Decl. Ex. 2, at 26. According to the “Grievance Category” column in the grievance history, the first, grievance 314759, concerned harassment. Id. The second, grievance 315224, concerned staff negligence. Id. Based on this, Defendants contend these two grievances do not concern Plaintiff's failure to protect claim. Br. in Supp. Mot. to Dismiss 5-6. They have not, however, attached the grievances themselves. Instead, they simply rely on the description of the grievances in the grievance history and a statement by Singelton that Plaintiff “never filed a grievance against Defendants for failure to protect him.” Singelton Decl. ¶ 19. It is Defendants' burden to establish Plaintiff's failure to exhaust at this step. Turner, 541 F.3d at 1082. Reliance on a cursory description of the grievances in the grievance history and Singleton's opinion as to the topics covered is insufficient.

Plaintiff in fact filed three grievances on September 29, 2020, but subsequently dropped one of the grievances. Singleton Decl. Ex. 2, at 26.

Moreover, Plaintiff submitted both grievances into the record. See 1st Recast Compl. Ex. 2, at 1-17, ECF No. 8-2. Grievance 315224 complains, inter alia, that Defendant Black, or other prison officials, transferred inmate Munson to Plaintiff's dorm, knowing there was a conflict between them, and that shortly thereafter, inmate Munson attacked Plaintiff. Id. at 1-2. Grievance 314759 concerns only the attack itself. Id. at 10. Both grievances were initially denied on their merits, and Plaintiff filed appeals. Id. at 3-4, 11-16. Both appeals were denied on December 8, 2020. Id. at 7, 17.

As Plaintiff complied with GDC's grievance procedure prior to initiating this lawsuit, the question before the Court is whether RSP had fair notice from these grievances to address the alleged failure to protect. See Diamond v. Owens, 131 F.Supp.3d 1346, 1358 (M.D.Ga. 2015) (“Grievances should provide prison officials with fair notice of a problem and thus an opportunity to address the problem before a lawsuit is filed.” (citing Chandler v. Crosby, 379 F.3d 1278, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004)). Grievance 315224 does just that. It alleged the problem threefold- (1) inmate Munson, a volatile inmate, wrote a grievance against Plaintiff; (2) Defendant Black, or other prison officials, placed inmate Munson in the same dorm as Plaintiff knowing the two had issues; and (3) inmate Munson subsequently attacked Plaintiff. 1st Recast Compl. Ex. 2, at 1-2. In other words, but for Defendant Black's transfer of inmate Munson to Plaintiff's dorm, Plaintiff would not have been attacked. Although Plaintiff alleges that the placement of Munson in his dorm was part of a pattern of retaliation, the particular act of retaliation his grievance discusses is failing to protect him from Munson. Therefore, Plaintiff alleged enough information in grievance 315224 to put RSP on notice of Defendants' failure to protect. As such, Plaintiff fully exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his failure to protect claim, and Defendants' motion to dismiss should be denied.

To the extent Defendants argue Plaintiff's grievance did not comply with the PLRA because he did not name each Defendant in his grievance, see Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 5, this argument is unavailing. See Parzyck v. Prison Health Services, Inc., 627 F.3d 1215, 1218-19 (11th Cir. 2010) (“A prisoner need not name any particular defendant in a grievance in order to properly exhaust his claim.” (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007)).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court recommends that Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 46) be denied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties may serve and file written objections to this Recommendation, or seek an extension of time to file objections, within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy hereof. The district judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. All other portions of the Recommendation may be reviewed for clear error.

The parties are hereby notified that, pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in the interests of justice.”

SO RECOMMENDED,


Summaries of

Glover v. Black

United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia
Sep 15, 2021
4:21-cv-00003-CDL-MSH (M.D. Ga. Sep. 15, 2021)
Case details for

Glover v. Black

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL A. GLOVER, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN REAGAN BLACK, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia

Date published: Sep 15, 2021

Citations

4:21-cv-00003-CDL-MSH (M.D. Ga. Sep. 15, 2021)