Howard v. Robertson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION
JACOB TODD HOWARD 	PLAINTIFF
#202300138
v. 	3:24CV00223-DPM-JTK
SHEILA ROBERTSON, et al. 	DEFENDANTS
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United
States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. 	Any party may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. 	If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or
legal basis for your objections; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14)
days of this Recommendation. 	By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
fact.
DISPOSITION
I. 	Introduction
Jacob Todd Howard (“Plaintiff”) is currently at inmate at the Ouachita River Unit of the
Arkansas Division of Correction. 	He was incarcerated at the Greene County, Arkansas, Detention
Center (the “Detention Center”) at the time he filed this action. 	(Doc. No. 2 at 3). 	Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint is the operative pleading in this action. 	(Doc. No. 6).
Plaintiff’s conditions of confinement claims against Greene County Sheriff Brad Snyder,
Detention Center Administrator Sheila Robertson, Detention Center Supervisor Jacob White, and
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 1 of 7

2
Officer Payton Johnson (collectively, “Defendants”) in their official and personal capacities
remain pending.1 	(Doc. Nos. 6, 9, 13).
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion, Brief in
Support, and Statement of Facts. (Doc. Nos. 38-40). 	On September 26, 2025, the Court directed
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion within 30 days, or by October 27, 2025. 	(Doc. No.
41). 	The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order would result in all of the
facts set forth in Defendants’ summary judgment papers being deemed admitted, or the dismissal
of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 	(Id.) 	To date, Plaintiff has not filed a
response.
After careful consideration of the record before me, and for the reasons set out below, the
Court recommends that Defendants’ Motion be granted and Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
II. 	Plaintiff’s Claims
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the time he filed his Amended Complaint, says that for a
period of 50 days Defendants took his mat and blanket for 16 hours a day. 	(Doc. No. 6 at 5-7).
Plaintiff says that during those 16 hours, he was forced to lie on solid steel. 	(Id. at 5).
III. 	Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to FED. R. C IV. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate if the record shows
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir. 1997). 	“The moving party
bears the initial burden of identifying ‘those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to
1 Plaintiff’s additional claims were dismissed without prejudice and the additional named
defendants were terminated as parties to this case. 	(Doc. No. 13).
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 2 of 7

3
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.’” 	Webb v. Lawrence County, 144
F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (other
citations omitted)). 	“Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot
simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant ‘must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 1135. 	Although the facts are
viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, “in order to defeat a motion for summary
judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must be a genuine
dispute over those facts that could actually affect the outcome of the lawsuit.” Id.
In addition, “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement (of undisputed material facts)
filed by the moving party...shall be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement filed by
the non-moving party . . . .” 	Local Rule 56.1, Rules of the United States District Court for the
Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. 	Failure to properly support or address the moving
party=s assertion of fact can result in the fact considered as undisputed for purposes of the motion.
FED. R. C IV. P. 56(e).
IV. 	Analysis
Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his claims against them. 	(Doc. Nos. 38-
40).
According to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”),
[n]o 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 administrative remedies as are available are
exhausted.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
The courts have interpreted this provision as a mandatory requirement that administrative
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 3 of 7

4
remedies be exhausted prior to the filing of a lawsuit. 	In Booth v. Churner, the United States
Supreme Court held that in enacting the PLRA, “Congress has mandated exhaustion clearly
enough, regardless of the relief offered through administrative procedures.” 532 U.S. 731, 741
(2001). 	In addition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in Chelette v.
Harris, “[t]he statute’s requirements are clear: If administrative remedies are available, the prisoner
must exhaust them. Chelette failed to do so, and so his complaint must be dismissed, for ‘we are
not free to engraft upon the statute an exception that Congress did not place there.’” 	229 F.3d
684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Castano v. Nebraska Dept of Corrections, 201 F.3d 1023, 1025
(8th Cir. 2000)). 	In Johnson v. Jones, the Court held that “[u]nder the plain language of section
1997e(a), an inmate must exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court . . . .
If exhaustion was not completed at the time of filing, dismissal is mandatory.” 340 F.3d 624, 627
(8th Cir. 2003) (emphasis in original). 	Finally, in Jones v. Bock, the United States Supreme Court
held that while the PLRA itself does not require that all defendants be specifically named in an
administrative grievance, “it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the
boundaries of proper exhaustion.” 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007).
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’
Motion. 	Plaintiff has not controverted any material fact set forth by Defendants in their statement
of undisputed material facts. 	Accordingly, all material facts submitted by Defendants (Doc. No.
40) are deemed admitted. 	LOCAL R ULE 56.1(c); F ED. R. C IV. P. 56(e).
At the time of the incidents giving rise to this lawsuit, the Greene County Detention Center
had in place a grievance policy. 	(Doc. No. 40 at ¶ 9; Doc. No. 40-1 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 40-5 at ¶ 21).
All inmates are made aware of the grievance policy through the Detention Center’s handbook
available on the kiosk. 	(Doc. No. 40-5 at ¶ 21B(a)(1)). 	Under the policy, a grievance is defined
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 4 of 7

5
as “a formal complaint of actual or perceived abuse or an abridgment of a detainee’s constitutional
or civil rights while in the facility.” 	(Id. at ¶ 21A(a)). 	The policy distinguishes a grievance from
a request. 	The policy defines a request as “a written document asking for something to be given
or done. 	In the Detention Center, a detainee should submit a request for supplies or other services
or activities.” 	(Id. at ¶ 21A(c)).
Inmates at the Detention Center “shall use the kiosk to file their grievance.” 	(Id. at ¶
21B(b)(1)). 	A grievance must: be filed within 48 hours from the time of the incident giving rise
to the complaint; name the individual(s) allegedly involved in the violation of the inmate’s rights;
and describe the incident in detail, including the date and approximate time, the name of witnesses,
and a statement of the right the inmate believes was violated. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 21B(b)(2)). 	Detention
Center officials generally respond to a grievance within 5 days. 	(Id. at ¶ 21B(c)(2)).
An inmate may appeal the initial response to a grievance within 48 hours of receiving the
response. 	(Doc. No. 40-5 at ¶ 21B(d)(2)). 	Detention Center officials generally respond to the
appeal within three business days. 	(Id. at ¶ 21B(d)(3)). 	The inmate may appeal the initial
appeal response within 48 hours of receiving the response. 	(Id. at ¶ 21B(d)(4)). 	The Captain
should respond to the inmate’s second appeal within three business days. 	(Id. at ¶ 21B(d)(5)).
An inmate’s second appeal is the last step in the Detention Center’s grievance procedure.
In support of their Motion, Defendants presented the sworn Affidavit of Defendant White,
a Captain and the Detention Center’s Administrator and custodian of records. 	(Doc. No. 40-1 at
¶¶ 1-2). 	According to Defendant White, Plaintiff filed numerous grievances between February
10, 2023, and January 2, 2025. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 29, 30). 	Only one grievance, however, was related to
Plaintiff’s claims in this case, grievance 36558506. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 30-32). 	According to Defendant
White, grievance 36558506 was untimely, did not name any individual who is a Defendant in this
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 5 of 7

6
action, and was not appealed. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 32-34). 	Defendant White attached Plaintiff’s grievances
to his Affidavit. 	(Doc. No. 40-3).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s grievances. 	Grievance 36558506 does not make
allegations against any individual but complains generally about the taking of Plaintiff’s mat and
blanket. 	(Id. at 33). 	The grievance includes the following terms and conditions that Plaintiff had
to accept before continuing with the kiosk grievance process:
The grievance procedure is mandatory to exhaust all remedies to an actual or
perceived abuse or an abridgement of a detainee’s constitutional or civil rights
while in the facility. 	You must submit a grievance within 48 hours from the time
the event complained of occurred or the complaint will be considered abandoned.
The grievance shall include: the date, approximate time, and location of the event;
the name of any witnesses; and a statement of the right the detainee feels was
violated.
(Id.).
Nothing in the record reflects that Plaintiff appealed the response to grievance 36558506.
(Id.).
Again, Plaintiff has not contested any material fact set forth by Defendants. 	(Doc. No.
40). 	Plaintiff did not meet proof with proof to establish facts in dispute that would preclude
summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. 	Wilson v. Miller, 821 F.3d 963, 970 (8th Cir. 2016)
(allegations must be substantiated with sufficient probative evidence); Bolderson v. City of
Wentzville, Missouri, 840 F.3d 982, 986-87 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting plaintiff’s duty to meet proof
with proof in affirming summary judgment in defendant’s favor). 	Consequently, the Court finds
Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies against Defendants. 	Accordingly, the Court
recommends Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and Plaintiff’s claims against
Defendants be dismissed without prejudice. 	If United States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.
adopts this Recommendation, no claims will remain pending in this case. 	As such, the Court
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 6 of 7

7
further recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint, as amended, be dismissed.
V. 	Conclusion
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. No.
38) be GRANTED;
2. 	Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies;
3. 	Plaintiff’s Complaint, as amended (Doc. No. 6), be DISMISSED without prejudice;
4. 	The 	Court 	certify 	that 	an 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	appeal 	from 	this 	Order 	and
accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Dated this 28th day of October, 2025.
_________________________________
JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:24-cv-00223-DPM Document 42 Filed 10/28/25 Page 7 of 7