Lopez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

JOSEPH VICTOR LOPEZ PLAINTIFF

ADC #184342

v. No: 4:25-cv-00078-JM-PSH

KENTARIOUS TATE, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

INSTRUCTIONS

The following Recommendation has been sent to United States District Judge

James M. Moody, Jr. 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 this Recommendation. By not objecting, you

may waive the right to appeal questions of fact.

DISPOSITION

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Joseph Victor Lopez filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 on January 30, 2025, while incarcerated at the Arkansas Division of

Correction’s Cummins Unit (Doc. No. 2). Lopez was subsequently granted in forma

pauperis status. See Doc. No. 8. After screening Lopez’s complaint, the Court

ordered service on defendants Sergeant Kentarious Tate, Captain Latoya Johnson,

and Lieutenant Latashia Taylor (the “Defendants”). Id. They have answered in their

individual capacities. See Doc. No. 15. Lopez’s claims against them in their official

capacities have been dismissed. See Doc. No. 18.

Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment, a brief in support, and a

statement of facts (Doc. Nos. 21-23) filed by the Defendants, claiming that Lopez

did not exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to his claims against

them before he filed this lawsuit. The Court notified Lopez of his opportunity to file

a response and separate statement of disputed facts, but he did not do so. See Doc.

No. 24. Because Lopez failed to controvert the facts set forth in the Defendants’

statement of facts, Doc. No. 22, those facts are deemed admitted. See Local Rule

56.1(c). For the reasons described below, the Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment should be granted.

II. Legal Standard

Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is

proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for

summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to

the nonmoving party. Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir.

2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but instead must

demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann

v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). The nonmoving party’s allegations

must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in

his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. Id. (citations

omitted). An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must

be supported by materials in the record such as “depositions, documents,

electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including

those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or

other materials . . .”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that a fact

is disputed or undisputed by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the

absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce

admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). A dispute is

genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict

for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case.

Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes

that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude

summary judgment. Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th

Cir. 2010).

III. Analysis

The Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Lopez’s

claims because he failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies before he

filed this lawsuit. See Doc. No. 23. In support of their motion, the Defendants

submitted: the declaration of Terri Grigsby-Brown, the ADC’s Inmate Grievance

Supervisor (Doc. No. 21-1); the ADC’s grievance policy (Doc. No. 21-2); and

Lopez’s grievance history (Doc. No. 21-3).

A. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust

prison grievance procedures before filing suit in federal court. See 42 U.S.C.

§1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202 (2007); Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136,

1141 (8th Cir. 2014). Exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory. Jones v. Bock, 549

U.S. at 211; Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 949 (8th Cir. 2012). “[T]he PLRA’s

exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life whether they

involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege

excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).

The PLRA does not prescribe the manner in which exhaustion occurs. See Jones v.

Bock, 549 U.S. at 218. It merely requires compliance with prison grievance

procedures to properly exhaust. See id. Thus, the question as to whether an inmate

has properly exhausted administrative remedies will depend on the specifics of that

particular prison’s grievance policy. See id.

Pursuant to the ADC’s grievance policy, Administrative Directive 19-34,

inmates are provided Unit Level Grievance Forms as part of the Inmate Grievance

Procedure. See Doc. No. 21-2 at 5. To resolve a problem, an inmate must first seek

informal resolution by submitting a Step One Unit Level Grievance Form

(Attachment I) within 15 days after the occurrence of the incident. Id. at 6. Inmates

are to “specifically name each individual involved for a proper investigation and

response to be completed by the ADC.” Id. at 5. Only one problem or issue may be

grieved per grievance form. Id. An inmate must be “specific as to the substance of

the issue or complaint to include the date, place, personnel involved or witnesses,

and how the policy or incident affected the inmate submitting the form.” Id. at 6. A

problem solver or staff member holding the rank of sergeant or above can collect the

grievance and return the yellow and pink copies of the grievance to the inmate as

receipts. Id. at 7. The problem solver or staff member investigates the complaint,

and may attempt to resolve the complaint by meeting with the inmate or taking

certain other steps, but ultimately must provide a written response at the bottom of

the form. Id. at 7-8. If the inmate is not satisfied with the resolution or the problem

solver does not respond within three working days, he may then complete Step Two

of the grievance procedure and submit either the pink or yellow copy of his Unit

Level Grievance Form as a formal grievance. Id. at 8. The inmate retains either the

pink or yellow copy, whichever he did not submit for Step Two. Id. at 9. If a formal

grievance is medical in nature, it is assigned a code and forwarded to the appropriate

medical personnel for response. Id. at 10.

The inmate should receive a Response to the Unit Level Grievance Form

(Attachment III or IV depending on whether the grievance is medical in nature), or

an Acknowledgement or Rejection of Unit Level Grievance (Attachment II). Id. at

10-11. If the inmate receives no response, or if the inmate is not satisfied with the

response, the inmate can then appeal to the Deputy Director. Id. at 12. An inmate’s

appeal must be written in the space provided on the Response to Unit Level

Grievance Form (Attachment III or IV) or the Acknowledgment or Rejection of Unit

Level Grievance (Attachment II). Id. at 12. The inmate must include the original

Unit Level Grievance Form (Attachment I) and either the Response to Unit Level

Grievance Form (Attachment III or IV) or the Acknowledgement or Rejection of the

Unit Level Grievance (Attachment II) with his appeal. Id. If an inmate fails to

submit either of the two pages with his appeal, the appeal may be returned to the

inmate as rejected. Id. Once the Deputy Director responds or the appeal is rejected,

the grievance process is complete. Id. at 13. According to the ADC’s grievance

policy, the entire grievance procedure should be completed within 76 working days

absent an extension or unforeseen circumstances. Id. at 14. The grievance policy

specifically states that inmates must exhaust administrative remedies at all levels of

the procedure before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. Id. at 19.

B. Lopez’s Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

In her declaration, Inmate Grievance Supervisor Grigsby-Brown stated that

she reviewed Lopez’s grievance history and found no grievances naming the

Defendants or describing Lopez’s complaint allegations that Defendant Tate beat

him on October 23, 2024, while Defendants Johnson and Taylor watched. Doc. No.

21-1 at 7, ¶¶ 34-35. According to Grigsby-Brown’s declaration, Lopez filed no

grievances between October 23, 2024, and January 30, 2025 (the day he initiated

this lawsuit). Id. Lopez submitted two unrelated grievances after the date he filed

this action in 2025 but did not exhaust them. Id. at ¶ 36; Doc. No. 21-3. Lopez has

not disputed the facts asserted by Grigsby-Brown.

The Court finds Lopez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with

respect to his claims in this case for two reasons. First, there is no record of any

written grievance or request from Lopez describing the October 23, 2024 incident or

naming the Defendants. Second, Lopez has come forward with no proof that he

attempted to grieve the Defendants’ actions, but was prevented from doing so.1 In

1 See East v. Minnehaha Cty., 986 F.3d 816, 821 (8th Cir. 2021) (holding that an

inmate need only exhaust available administrative remedies). “Administrative remedies

are not available if ‘prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a

grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.’” Id.

(quoting Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1860 (2016)). Administrative remedies may also

sum, because Lopez did not grieve his complaint allegations and has not shown that

he was unable to do so, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

IV. Conclusion

The evidence establishes that Lopez did not properly exhaust his

administrative remedies with respect to the claims he asserts in this lawsuit.

Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that the Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment (Doc. No. 21) be granted and Lopez’s claims against the

Defendants be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies.

DATED this 4" day of November, 2025.

mom ae

be unavailable if prison officials prevent inmates from utilizing the grievance procedures

or fail to comply with such procedures. See Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339 (8th Cir.

2005); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2001).