Gipson v. Renninger
| Decision Date | 18 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:15-cv-827-J-39PDB |
| Parties | JERALD GIPSON, Plaintiff, v. K. RENNINGER AND LT. J. GREENE, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida |
Plaintiff is an inmate confined in the Florida penal system. He is proceeding pro se on a Third Amended Complaint (Third Amended Complaint) (Doc. 58) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He filed his original Complaint (Doc. 1) on June 30, 2015, pursuant to the mailbox rule. This cause is before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion) (Doc. 68).1 Plaintiff responded. Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Response) (Doc. 85). See Order (Doc. 9); Notice (Doc. 69). The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to supplement his response, Order (Doc. 89), and the Court will consider the exhibits attached to the Supplement (Doc. 86).
"Summary judgment is appropriate only if 'the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337, 1341 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)). "If the moving party meets this burden, 'the nonmoving party must present evidence beyond the pleadings showing that a reasonable jury could find in its favor.'" Ekokotu v. Federal Exp. Corp., 408 F. App'x 331, 333 (11th Cir.) (per curiam) (quoting Fickling v. United States, 507 F.3d 1302, 1304 (11th Cir. 2007)), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 944 (2011).
The alleged facts supporting the Third Amended Complaint are set forth at pages 10-18. Although difficult to read, the Court liberally construes the Third Amended Complaint as presenting the following facts. Plaintiff states that on May 29, 2015, he was confined in a cell as an inpatient transitional care unit inmate at Suwannee Correctional Institution (SCI). Id. at 10. At approximately 12:45 a.m., Defendant Renninger did a security check of the dormitory and came by Plaintiff's cell. Id. at 11. Plaintiff told Defendant Renninger that he had a serious injuries from a previous beating, causing him to blank out, suffer severe pain, and to have headaches. Id. Plaintiff also told Defendant Renninger that he felt he would have a heart attack from physicaland emotional stress caused by his treatment in prison. Id. Plaintiff claimed to have a heart murmur and a hole in his heart. Id. Defendant Renninger told Plaintiff to get off of the door and threatened Plaintiff through denial of medical care. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he asked Renninger to call the nurse because Plaintiff was declaring a medical emergency due to sharp, severe chest pains and blanking out, but Renninger "neglected" Plaintiff's medical emergency. Id. at 12.
Defendant Renninger and Nurse Handcocks [sic] came by during her rounds, and Plaintiff told them he was declaring a medical emergency. Id. Nurse Handcocks and Renninger did not accept Plaintiff's declaration of a medical emergency, stating that if an inmate is not bleeding or cutting himself, it is not a medical emergency. Id.
Plaintiff was placed on property restriction and told to strip down to his boxers and pack up his property. Id. at 13. His mattress, sheets, and blanket and were stored away. Id. Thirty minutes later, Defendants Greene and Renninger came by and told Plaintiff if he called out for another medical emergency, Plaintiff would not eat for a week, and if he wrote a grievance or lawsuit against them, Defendants would break Plaintiff's jaw and send him to the hospital. Id.
After being denied a medial emergency by the Defendants and the nurse, Plaintiff feared that he would have a heart attack fromthe physical and emotional stress caused by his treatment in prison. Id. at 14. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Defendant Greene saw Plaintiff naked in his cell. Defendant Greene made verbal sexual comments about Plaintiff's body parts. Id. Plaintiff continued to have pain and headaches, feeling like he was blanking out. Id. He slept on the hard concrete bunk in temperatures below 50 degrees. Id.
Plaintiff states he did not violate any Florida Department of Corrections' (FDOC) rules. Id. at 15. Plaintiff contends that his medical records will show that he has severe heart problems of an enlarged heart, a heart murmur, and a hole in his heart. Id. He also states that the records will verify his head injuries. Id. Plaintiff contends that his medical condition was exacerbated by delay and failure to provide urgent medical care. Id.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to properly avail himself of the grievance process with regard to his claims. The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires exhaustion of available administrative remedies before a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action with respect to prison conditions by a prisoner may be initiated in this Court. Title 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides: "No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in anyjail, prison or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted."
In this regard, Defendants bear the burden of proving a failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. Turner v. Burnside, 541 F.3d 1077, 1082-83 (11th Cir. 2008), Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). The Court has guidelines for reviewing a prisoner civil rights action for exhaustion compliance:
Before a prisoner may bring a prison-conditions suit under § 1983, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires that he exhaust all available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); seealsoBooth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 1822, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). The purpose of the PLRA's exhaustion requirement is to "afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2387, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (quotation omitted). To properly exhaust, a prisoner must "[c]ompl[y] with prison grievance procedures." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218, 127 S.Ct. 910, 922-23, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007).
Whatley v. Warden, Ware State Prison, 802 F.3d 1205, 1208 (11th Cir. 2015).
The Court recognizes that exhaustion of available administrative remedies is "a precondition to an adjudication on the merits" and is mandatory under the PLRA. Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368, 1374 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1074 (2008); Jones, 549 U.S. at 211; Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 85 (2006) () (citation omitted). The Supreme Court has stated that "failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense under the PLRA[.]" Jones, 549 U.S. at 216. Although, "the PLRA exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional[,]" Woodford, 548 U.S. at 101, "exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA[;]" therefore, "unexhausted claims cannot be brought." Pavao v. Sims, 679 F. App'x 819, 823 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Also, the only recognized limitation is availability:
In reviewing the question of exhaustion, "[t]he only facts pertinent to determining whether a prisoner has satisfied the PLRA's exhaustion requirement are those that existed when he filed his original complaint. Smith v. Terry, 491 F. App'x 81, 83 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citing Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970, 981 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). Indeed, "[t]he time the [PLRA] sets for determining whether exhaustion of administrative remedies has occurred is when the legal action is brought, because it is then that the exhaustion bar is to be applied." Wheeler v. Davis, No. 5:14CV271/WS/CJK, 2017 WL 1029119, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 6, 2017) (report and recommendation) (quoting Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1324 (11th Cir. 2007)) (emphasis in Wheeler), report and recommendation adopted by 2017 WL 1027035 (N.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2017).
Therefore, the relevant question before this Court is whether Plaintiff properly exhausted available administrative remedies as of June 30, 2015. The question of availability of the procedure goes to whether the administrative procedure was available before June 30, 2015, prior to the filing of the initial complaint. Construing the exhaustion requirement otherwise would render the PLRA "a toothless scheme." Woodford, 548 U.S. at 95.
Not only is there an exhaustion requirement, "the PLRA exhaustion requirement requires proper exhaustion." Woodford, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial