Opinion
4:23-CV-00875-KGB-BBM
07-16-2024
EDDIE POINDEXTER ADC #121353 PLAINTIFF v. A. WILKINS, Capt., Tucker Unit, et al. DEFENDANTS
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
MOORE, JUDGE
The following Recommended Disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to Chief United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. You may file written objections to all or part of this Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must (1) specifically explain the factual and/or legal basis for your objection; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Recommendation. If you do not file objections, Chief Judge Baker may adopt this Recommendation without independently reviewing all of the evidence in the record. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 19, 2023, Plaintiff Eddie Poindexter (“Poindexter”), a prisoner in the Tucker Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”), filed a pro se Complaint and Addendum pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docs. 2-3). A second Addendum, Notice, and Supplemental Complaint followed. (Docs. 6-1, 8, and 9). Poindexter alleged that various ADC employees and fellow inmates committed “human rights” violations against him. And, in his Supplemental Complaint, he attached grievances complaining, in part, that his “medical diet script” was discontinued in March 2024. (Doc. 9 at 2-11).
The Court conducted an initial screening of Poindexter's pleadings pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and noted several deficiencies. (Doc. 10). As relevant to this screening Recommendation, the Court noted that Poindexter could not pursue the allegations contained in his Supplemental Complaint that occurred after he filed his original Complaint in September 2023 because he could not have exhausted those claims before initiating this action. Id. at 9-10. The Court also noted that Poindexter would need to choose whether to proceed on “(1) unrelated claims against a single defendant; or (2) related claims against multiple defendants.” Id. at 10 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 20(a)(2)) (emphasis in original). Poindexter was given leave to file an amended complaint and placed on notice that an amended complaint would supersede all previous pleadings. Id. (citing In re Atlas Lines, Inc., 209 F.3d 1064, 1067 (8th Cir. 2000)).
The PLRA requires federal courts to screen prisoner complaints and to dismiss any claims that: (a) are legally frivolous or malicious; (b) fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (c) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) & (b).
On June 6, 2024, Poindexter filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. 12). He did not provide a case number on that document but indicated that it should be filed in his “CV-human rights case.” Id. at 19. Accordingly, the document was docketed as an Amended Complaint in this action.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Allegations in Amended Complaint
In his Amended Complaint, Poindexter alleges that, “on or around April the 15th2024,” Dr. Beck “discontinued [his] medical diet,” and Charlotte Gardner and other medical staff either “failed to assist” Poindexter or “encouraged” Dr. Beck to discontinue the script. (Doc. 12 at 3, 6-18). For relief, he asks that his medical diet be renewed and for $250,000 in damages. Id. at 4.
B. Screening
Because all events in Poindexter's superseding Amended Complaint occurred after Poindexter initiated this action in September 2023, he could not have exhausted his administrative remedies for those events before bringing this action. Under well-established Eighth Circuit case law, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies before initiating a § 1983 action. Johnson v. Jones, 340 F.3d 624, 626-28 (8th Cir. 2003) (“Under the plain language of section 1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court...If exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory.”) (emphasis in original).
Although failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, it is appropriate for the Court to dismiss unexhausted claims upon screening when it is apparent from the face of the Complaint that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 214-15 (2007); Carbe v. Lappin, 492 F.3d 325, 328 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Under Jones, [] a court can dismiss a case prior to service on defendants for failure to state a claim, predicated on failure to exhaust, if the complaint itself makes clear that the prisoner failed to exhaust.”). Because Poindexter could not have possibly exhausted his post-Complaint claims before initiating this § 1983 action, he cannot pursue those claims in this action.
III. CONCLUSION
After careful consideration of Poindexter's superseding Amended Complaint (Doc. 12), the Court finds that Poindexter has stated only unexhausted claims against the Defendants.
IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. Poindexter's Amended Complaint (Doc. 12) be DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Although Jones counsels that an unexhausted claim on the face of the complaint may be dismissed “for failure to state a claim,” Jones, 549 U.S. at 214-15, a “strike” under the PLRA is not recommended in this case. See Owens v. Isaac, 487 F.3d 561, 563 (8th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted) (finding that a case dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies “is not a strike under section 1915(g).”).
2. The Court CERTIFY, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an in forma pauperis appeal from any Order adopting this Recommendation and accompanying judgment would not be taken in good faith.