Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richards v. Hogans

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

April 17, 2017

JAMES RICHARDS PLAINTIFF
v.
NORRIS HOGANS, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          F. KEITH BALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment based on Plaintiff's Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Norris Hogans, Ray Rice, Simone Jones, Alma Wren, LeShuntae Hughes-Moore, Katrina Coleman, Jeremy Clay, and Terry Hibbler [30], and joined by Defendant Jared Miller [37], in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, James Richards, has not responded to the motion. The Court has held an Omnibus Hearing in this matter, at which time the parties consented to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge, and the District Judge subsequently entered an Order of Reference. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. Richards is proceeding in this matter in forma pauperis and pro se.

         I. CLAIMS

         Richards alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights during his confinement at East Mississippi Correctional Facility (''EMCF''). In his Complaint [1], Richards alleges a myriad of claims regarding the conditions of confinement at EMCF against Defendants, who were employees of EMCF at the time of the events on which the action is based.

         Defendants argue that they are entitled to partial summary judgment based on Richards's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In short, Defendants acknowledge that Richards has exhausted his administrative remedies related to his Eighth Amendment claims based on the living conditions he experienced while housed in Unit 6-D. See [30-1] at 2, 14. However, Defendants argue that Richards has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to certain Rules Violation Reports (“RVRs”), as follows:

1. RVR # 01538913, received on August 6, 2015, for throwing an unknown liquid substance on Officer Clay with a punishment of loss of all privileges for 30 days. [30-3] at 1;
2. RVR # 01639634, received on August 6, 2015, for throwing an unknown liquid substance on Officer Hibbler with a punishment of loss of all privileges for 30 days. [30-3] at 5;
3. RVR # 01639635, received on August 6, 2015, for threatening staff with a punishment of loss of all privileges for 30 days. [30-3] at 11; and
4. RVR # 01654753, received on August 7, 2015, for throwing an unknown liquid substance on Officer Clay with a punishment of loss of all privileges for 30 days. [30-3] at 15.

         Defendants argue that Richards failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to these RVRs when he attempted to appeal the convictions in one administrative grievance, EMCF-15-2246, but the grievance was rejected as untimely. [30-1] at 2, 27.

         Richards was also found guilty on three additional RVRs, as follows:

1. RVR # 01654120, received on August 19, 2015, for refusing to obey an order of staff by refusing to be housed in general population, with a punishment of a custody review. [30-3] at 20;
2. RVR # 01654441, received on September 24, 2015, for failing to obey an order by staff by refusing to move out of segregation back into general population with a punishment of loss of all privileges for 30 days. [30-3] at 26; and
3. RVR # 01653660, received on October 15, 2015, for failing to obey an order of staff by refusing to move out of segregation back into general population with a punishment of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.