United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
C. GARGIULO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
THE COURT is a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 58),
filed by Defendants Jacqueline Banks, Marshal Turner, Mark
Davis, Lucy Martin, Evon Henderson, Faytonia Johnson, Jarita
Bivens, and Rongelia Powe. The Motion for Summary Judgment
was filed following an omnibus hearing that also operated as
a Spears hearing. Plaintiff Kenneth Ray Goldsmith, a
postconviction inmate in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections (MDOC) was ordered to file a
response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and has done so.
(ECF No. 61).
considered the submissions of the parties, the record, and
relevant law, the Court finds that Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment must be GRANTED because Plaintiff did not
complete MDOC's two-step grievance process before filing
suit concerns events allegedly occurring at the South
Mississippi Correctional Institution (SMCI) in Leakesville,
Mississippi, where Plaintiff is currently housed. Plaintiff
is suing Capt. Mark Davis because Plaintiff claims that Capt.
Davis planted contraband in his cell that resulted in
Plaintiff receiving three rule violations. Plaintiff believes
that Capt. Davis has orchestrated retaliation against him for
filing this suit.
is suing Lt. Lucy Martin because she was the hearing officer
who heard the appeals regarding the rule violations. (ECF No.
61, at 2). Plaintiff has sued Marshal Turner “because
my RVRs was appeal to him in the proper matter.”
Id. Plaintiff is suing Jacqueline Banks for not
following policy. Id. Plaintiff has sued Evon
Henderson because she is related to Capt. Davis and did not
place Plaintiff in protective custody. Id. Plaintiff
has sued Capt. Johnson because she “had the power to
move me out of harms [sic] way.” Id. Plaintiff
has sued Jarita Bivens because “she didn't give me
a proper classification hereing [sic].” Id.
Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment shall be granted “if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute of material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). In evaluating a motion for
summary judgment, the Court must construe “all facts
and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564,
571 (5th Cir. 2012).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act's exhaustion
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321, H.R. 3019 (codified as amended in scattered
titles and sections of the U.S.C.), prisoners are required to
exhaust available administrative remedies before filing a
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions
under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a
prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional
facility until such administrative remedies as are available
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
PLRA's exhaustion requirement protects administrative
agency authority, promotes efficiency, and produces “a
useful record for subsequent judicial consideration.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 89 (2006). A