United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
JASON R. HOLLOWAY PLAINTIFF
MARSHALL FISHER, ET AL. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEITH BALL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment  for Failure
to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants
Marshall Fisher, Jerry Williams, Gloria Perry, Ron King,
Brian Ladner, James Fillyaw, Supt. Earnest Lee, Warden Sonja
Sanciel, Deputy Warden Simon Lee, Lt. Jamaal Murriel, Lt.
Kevin Nunn, Lt. Lorrance Cross, and Richard Pennington in
this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants Dr. Gail Williams and Centurion of Mississippi,
LLC, filed a Joinder  to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. Plaintiff, Jason R. Holloway, has
responded to the motion. .
Court 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. Holloway is proceeding in this
matter in forma pauperis and pro se.
reasons explained in this opinion, the Court finds that the
motion for summary judgment  should be granted in part
and denied in part, and Holloway's Motion response 
should be granted in part and denied in part.
alleges that his constitutional rights were violated while he
was housed in the Mississippi Department of Corrections at
Central Mississippi Correctional Facility
(“CMCF”) in October 2015, and thereafter when he
was transferred to the Mississippi State Penitentiary,
Parchman, Mississippi (“Parchman”), where he was
housed in October and November 2015. Defendants are Dr. Gail
Williams, who allegedly failed to provide adequate mental
health care treatment at Unit 42, as well as current and
former employees of MDOC: Marshall Fisher, the former
Commissioner of MDOC; Jerry Williams; Gloria Perry; Ron King;
Brian Ladner; James Fillyaw; Supt. Earnest Lee; Warden Sonja
Sanciel; Deputy Warden Simon Lee; Lt. Jamaal Murriel; Lt.
Kevin Nunn; and Richard Pennington (“MDOC
Defendants). In this action, Plaintiff's claims may
be summarized as follows:
1. Plaintiff alleges that the MDOC Defendants failed to
protect him from harm when he was raped by another inmate on
October 1, 2015, at CMCF.  at 12-13.
2. Plaintiff alleges that after he underwent treatment at a
private hospital, he was transported to the hospital at Unit
42 of the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman,
Mississippi, on October 14, 2015. He was housed at Unit 42
for approximately fifteen to seventeen days, after which time
he was transferred to the East Mississippi Correctional
Facility (“EMCF”), where he is currently housed.
Plaintiff makes claims regarding his conditions of
confinement for the period in which he was housed at Unit 42.
Id. at 13-14, 15-17. More specifically, he claims
that the facilities were filthy, were infested by vermin, had
no hot water, had inadequate ventilation, and had inadequate
lighting and plumbing. Id. at 15-17.
3. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Dr. Williams denied him
adequate medical and mental health treatment while he was
housed at Unit 42. Id. at 17-20.
their filings, the MDOC Defendants acknowledge that Holloway
did file and exhaust his administrative remedies on his claim
that the MDOC Defendants failed to protect him from harm on
October 1, 2015, when he was allegedly raped by another
inmate at CMCF. See  at 2 n.1. The MDOC
Defendants argue, however, that Holloway failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies as to his conditions of
confinement claim and his denial of adequate mental health
and medical care treatment claims.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in relevant
part, that A[t]he 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). An issue of fact is
genuine if the "'evidence is sufficient to permit a
reasonable factfinder to return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.'" Lemoine v. New Horizons Ranch and
Center, 174 F.3d 629, 633 (5th Cir. 1999)(quoting
Colston v. Barnhart, 146 F.3d 282, 284 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 618 (1998)). Issues of fact
are material if Aresolution of the issues might affect the
outcome of the suit under governing law."
Lemoine, 174 F.3d at 633. The Court does not,
"however, in the absence of any proof, assume the
nonmoving [or opposing] party could or would prove the
necessary facts." Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)(emphasis
omitted). Moreover, the non-moving party's burden to come
forward with "specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial, " Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S.317, 323 (1986), is not satisfied by
"conclusory allegations" or by
"unsubstantiated assertions, " or by only a
"scintilla" of evidence. Little, 37 F.3d
law and case law require a prisoner to exhaust administrative
remedies, regardless of the relief sought, before bringing a
§ 1983 action in federal court. The relevant portion of
42 U.S.C. § 1997e, as amended by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), states the following:
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 any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such ...