Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Loken, Colloton, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Prisoner civil rights. The district court did not err in finding plaintiff had failed to exhaust his remedies with respect to certain claims against the deputy warden and the Arkansas Corrections Director; whether or not plaintiff had exhausted his remaining claims against all of the defendants, the claims failed to allege facts suggesting defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety, and the district court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants; judgment modified to make the dismissal of plaintiff's visitation and communication claims against the deputy warden and Director without prejudice.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-2388 ___________________________ Jay Lloyd Harris lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Deputy Warden Richard Todd Ball, Ouachita River Unit of the Arkansas Division of Correction; Director Dexter Payne, ADC; Dr. Guy Michael Henry, ORU; John Doe, Medical Director, ADC; Warden DeAngelo Earl, ADC; WellPath, LLC lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ____________ Submitted: January 30, 2024 Filed: February 2, 2024 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Arkansas inmate Jay Harris appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm. See De Rossitte v. Correct Care Sols., LLC, 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing de novo grant of summary judgment). Harris challenges the district court’s determination that he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to certain claims. He argues the claims concerned matters that were non-grievable under the prison grievance system. As to Harris’s claims against Deputy Warden Richard Ball and Arkansas Division of Correction Director Dexter Payne concerning restrictions on visitation and communication, we agree with the district court that Harris had available administrative remedies and failed to exhaust them. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (exhaustion requirement); Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 (2016) (noting, based on the language of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, inmates only have to exhaust “available” administrative remedies–those capable of obtaining some relief). As to Harris’s claim against Ball, Payne, and Warden DeAngelo Earl concerning Harris’s work assignment–an issue the prison grievance policy states is non-grievable “unless in conflict with medical restrictions”–we need not decide whether administrative remedies were available, as the claim fails for another reason warranting affirmance. See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2015) (noting this court may affirm on any basis supported by the record). We conclude Harris failed to allege facts suggesting these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety, especially because Harris asserts medical staff consistently refused to provide him with a medical restriction on outside labor. See Williams v. Norris, 148 F.3d 983, 986-87 (8th Cir. 1998) (listing the requirements for deliberate-indifference claim 1 The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Barry A. Bryant and the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judges for the Western District of Arkansas. -2- based on work assignments which are inappropriate due to inmate’s medical condition). Accordingly, we affirm, but modify the dismissal of the visitation and communication claims to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B; Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2015) (mandating dismissal without prejudice of unexhausted claim). ______________________________ -3-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
