United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
H. WALKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Melvin Lamar Perkins, proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis, filed on June 7, 2017, a 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 prisoner civil rights lawsuit alleging
unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the South
Mississippi Correctional Institution. In an order dated
September 21, 2018, the Court identified the following claims
alleged in Plaintiff's complaint, as amended:
(1) Defendant Van Arnold failed to protect Plaintiff from
violence at the hands of other inmates based on an attack
that occurred on or about December 26, 2016.
(2) Defendant Mark Davis failed to protect Plaintiff because
he made him stay in C-1 even though Plaintiff told Davis his
life was in danger.
(3) Defendant Whittaker forced Plaintiff to go back on the
zone, which cost Plaintiff $100 to save his life.
(4) Defendant Regina Reed ordered other inmates to attack
(5) Defendants Jacequelyn Banks, Katherine Blount, and
Pelicia Hall failed to provide adequate supervision of prison
staff to prevent gang-related activity and abuse of non-gang
(6) Defendant Ronnie Lampley used excessive force against
Plaintiff on August 20, 2015.
(7) SMCI is understaffed, which allows gang affiliated
inmates to control SMCI prison staff and to run an extortion
and contraband operation. Plaintiff requests the
implementation of various remedies to alleviate the risk of
harm to non-gang affiliated inmates, including separation of
gang-affiliated inmates from non-gang affiliated inmates,
installation of security cameras, and increase in the number
of security officers.
(8) Plaintiff requests that he be taken to a brain specialist
for treatment of head injuries suffered as a result of inmate
Doc.  at 1-2. Pending before the Court is Defendants
motion for summary judgment asserting that Plaintiff failed
to fully exhaust administrative remedies for any of these
claims prior to filing his complaint. Doc. . Plaintiff
has not filed a response in opposition to Defendants'
motion for summary judgment. Instead, he filed a series of
motions, none of which addresses the exhaustion issue.
See Doc.    .
provides that “[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); Sierra Club,
Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P., 627 F.3d 134,
138 (5th Cir. 2010). Where the summary judgment evidence
establishes that one of the essential elements of the
plaintiff's cause of action does not exist as a matter of
law, all other contested issues of fact are rendered
immaterial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
323 (1986); Topalin v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1138
(5th Cir. 1992). In making its determinations of fact on a