Teshome v. Me. State Prison

• Decision Date: 14 January 2021
• Docket Number: 1:20-cv-00150-JAW
• Parties: ABIL TESHOME, Plaintiff v. MAINE STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

ABIL TESHOME, Plaintiff v. MAINE STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants

1:20-cv-00150-JAW

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE

January 14, 2021

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Correct Care Solutions¹ ("Correct Care") and John Doe 3 provided inadequate medical care after he was attacked by two other inmates at the Maine State Prison. (Complaint, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, 42 USC § 1985, and the Maine Civil Rights Act (5 M.R.S. § 4682), alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.² Plaintiff also asserts a claim of civil conspiracy.

The matter is before the Court on Defendants' motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust the available administrative remedies, and Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state an actionable claim. (Motion, ECF No. 20.)

Following a review of the record and after consideration of the parties' arguments, I recommend the Court grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In the event the Court does not grant summary judgment or to the extent summary judgment does not resolve all Plaintiff's asserted claims, I recommend the Court grant Defendants' motion to dismiss.

I. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants moved for summary judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (Motion at 17-20.)

A. Summary Judgment Standard

"The court shall grant summary judgment 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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). "After the moving party has presented evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment, 'the burden shifts to the nonmoving party, with respect to each issue on which he has the burden of proof, to demonstrate that a trier of fact reasonably could find in his favor.'" Woodward v. Emulex Corp., 714 F.3d 632, 637 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151, 158 (1st Cir. 1998)).

A court reviews the factual record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving evidentiary conflicts and drawing reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Perry v. Roy, 782 F.3d 73, 77 (1st Cir. 2015). If a court's review of the record reveals evidence sufficient to support findings in favor of the non-moving party on one or more of the plaintiff's claims, a trial-worthy controversy exists, and summaryjudgment must be denied as to any supported claim. Id. ("The district court's role is limited to assessing whether there exists evidence such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Unsupported claims are properly dismissed. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986).

B. Summary Judgment Record

When presented with a summary judgment motion, a court ordinarily considers only the facts included in the parties' statements of material facts, which statements must be supported by citations to evidence of record. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) and District of Maine Local Rule 56(b)-(d) require the specific citation to record evidence.

By rule, a party seeking summary judgment must file, in addition to its summary judgment motion, a supporting statement of material facts setting forth each fact in a separately numbered paragraph, with each factual statement followed by a citation to evidence of record that supports the factual statement. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(b). A party opposing a motion for summary judgment must file an opposing statement in which it admits, denies, or qualifies the moving party's statements by reference to each numbered paragraph, with citations to supporting evidence, and in which it may set forth additional facts, in separately numbered paragraphs, with citation to supporting evidence. D. Me. Loc. R. 56(c). "Facts contained in a supporting ... statement of material facts, if supported by record citations as required by this rule, shall be deemed admitted unless properly controverted." D. Me. Loc. R. 56(f).

Although Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (Response, ECF No. 24), Plaintiff did not file a response toDefendants' supporting factual statement or a statement of additional material facts.³ See D. Me. Loc. R. 56(c). The Court thus deems as admitted the facts contained in Defendants' supporting statement of material facts. See D. Me. Loc. R. 56(f).

C. Factual Background

Plaintiff has been incarcerated at the Maine State Prison since May 18, 2017. (Defendants' Statement of Material Facts (DSMF) ¶ 1, ECF No. 21.) Upon arrival at the prison, Plaintiff was provided with, and signed for, a copy of the Prisoner Handbook. (Id. ¶ 2; see ECF No. 14-3.) The Handbook explained how to initiate the grievance process and contained a copy of the prison's Prisoner Grievance Process, Medical and Mental Health Care Policy (Policy 29.02). (Id. ¶ 3.) The Handbook states that "[t]he purpose of this policy is to establish a process for reviewing and resolving grievances brought by prisoners. Prior to a prisoner filing most lawsuits, the prisoner must attempt to resolve his complaint by using this process." (Id. ¶ 4.)

Under this process, a "Grievance Review Officer" is assigned to investigate and respond to inmate health care grievances. (Id. ¶ 5.) Inmates may submit grievances to the Grievance Review Officer or to the administrative office at the prison by using the internal mail system, and the prison maintains records of all inmate grievances. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) In addition to the informal resolution of a grievance, there are three levels of review available in the grievance process: the filing of a grievance with the Grievance Review Officer, anappeal to the Chief Administrative Officer, and, finally, a subsequent appeal to the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections. (Id. ¶¶ 6-9.)

There is no record of Plaintiff submitting a grievance while incarcerated or a grievance that was dismissed. (Id. ¶ 12.)

D. Discussion

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims are precluded, pursuant to the PLRA, from asserting his claim because Plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to filing his complaint. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). (Motion at 17-20.) Plaintiff contends that his claims are not barred by the PLRA, arguing that a grievance would have been futile "[b]ecause [he] could not realistically have been provided any form of relief through the grievance process." (Response at 6.)

The PLRA provides that

[n]o 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 any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "There is no question that exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA and that unexhausted claims cannot be brought in court." Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 211 (2007). "'Prison conditions' under [§ 1997e(a)] include individual instances of medical mis- or non-treatment." Acosta v. United States Marshals Serv., 445 F.3d 509, 512 (1st Cir. 2006).

Section 1997e(a) requires "proper exhaustion" of a prisoner's administrative remedies. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006). "Proper exhaustion demandscompliance with an agency's deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings." Id. at 90-91. "Compliance with prison grievance procedures ... is all that is required ... to 'properly exhaust.'" Jones, 549 U.S. at 218. Exhaustion is required even when the prisoner's suit seeks monetary damages that are not available through the prison's grievance process. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 734-35 (2001). However, "[a] prisoner need not exhaust remedies if they are not 'available.'" Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1855 (2016). "[A]n inmate is required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance procedures that are 'capable of use' to obtain 'some relief for the action complained of.'" Id. at 1859 (quoting Booth, 532 U.S. at 738).

As to Plaintiff's futility argument, "there is no 'futility exception' to the PLRA exhaustion requirement." Medina-Claudio v. Rodriguez-Mateo, 292 F.3d 31, 35 (1st Cir. 2002) (quoting Massey v. Wheeler, 221 F.3d 1030, 1034 (7th Cir. 2000)). The Supreme Court, however, has recognized "three kinds of circumstances in which an administrative remedy, although officially on the books, is not capable of use to obtain relief." Ross, 136 S. Ct. at 1859. "First, ... an administrative procedure is unavailable when (despite what regulations or guidance materials may promise) it operates as a simple dead end—with officers unable or consistently unwilling to provide any relief to aggrieved inmates." Id. (citing Booth, 532 U.S. at 736, 738). Second, "an administrative scheme might be so opaque that it becomes, practically speaking, incapable of use." Id. Third, an otherwise available grievance process is not available "when prison administrators thwart inmatesfrom taking advantage of a grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation." Id. at 1860.

The summary judgment record establishes that Plaintiff was provided with a copy of the Prisoner Handbook, which included a copy of the "Medical and Mental Health Care Policy" for prisoner's medical-related grievances. (DSMF ¶¶ 2-3.) The Handbook also explained how to initiate the grievance process and described the three levels of review that are available in that process. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 6-9.) Plaintiff did not submit a grievance following the May 9, 2018, incident in which Plaintiff was injured.⁴ (Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff, therefore, did not...