Mitchell v. Bland

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
SHANE LEE MITCHELL 	PLAINTIFF
ADC #121150
v. 	No: 4:25-cv-00960-KGB-PSH
ESTELLA BLAND 	DEFENDANT
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
INSTRUCTIONS
The following Recommendation has been sent to Chief United States District
Judge Kristine G. Baker. You 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 objection, 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
Plaintiff Shane Lee Mitchell, an inmate at the Cummins Unit of the Arkansas
Division of Correction, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on
September 17, 2025 (Doc. No. 2). 	Mitchell alleged that defendant Estella Bland
refused to provide him with adequate medical treatment on August 31, 2025, and
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 8

September 3, 2025. Id. The Court subsequently ordered service of process on Bland,
and she answered Mitchell’s complaint. See Doc. Nos. 3-4.
Before the Court is a motion for summary judgment, brief in support, and
statement of undisputed facts filed by Bland (Doc. Nos. 5-7). Bland seeks judgment
as a matter of law on grounds that Mitchell did not exhaust his administrative
remedies as to his claims against her before he filed this action. The Court notified
Mitchell of his opportunity to file a response and separate statement of disputed
facts, but he did not do so. 	See Doc. No. 9. Because Mitchell failed to controvert
the facts set forth in Bland’s statement of facts, Doc. No. 7, those facts are deemed
admitted. See Local Rule 56.1(c). For the reasons described herein, the undersigned
recommends that Bland’s motion for summary judgment be granted.
II. Legal Standard
Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is
proper if “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). When ruling on a motion for
summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. 	Naucke v. City of Park Hills, 284 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir.
2002). The nonmoving party may not rely on allegations or denials, but instead must
demonstrate the existence of specific facts that create a genuine issue for trial. Mann
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 8

v. Yarnell, 497 F.3d 822, 825 (8th Cir. 2007). 	The nonmoving party’s allegations
must be supported by sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in
his favor on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy. 	Id. (citations
omitted). An assertion that a fact cannot be disputed or is genuinely disputed must
be 	supported 	by 	materials 	in 	the 	record 	such 	as 	“depositions, 	documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including
those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or
other materials . . .”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party may also show that a fact
is disputed or undisputed by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the
absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce
admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). 	A dispute is
genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict
for either party; a fact is material if its resolution affects the outcome of the case.
Othman v. City of Country Club Hills, 671 F.3d 672, 675 (8th Cir. 2012). Disputes
that are not genuine or that are about facts that are not material will not preclude
summary judgment. 	Sitzes v. City of West Memphis, Ark., 606 F.3d 461, 465 (8th
Cir. 2010).
III. Analysis
Bland argues that Mitchell’s claims against her should be dismissed because
he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before he filed this lawsuit. 	In
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 8

support of her motion, Bland submitted a declaration by Brandy Johnson, the ADC’s
Medical Grievance Supervisor (Doc. No. 7-1); and a copy of the ADC’s grievance
procedure, Administrative Directive 19-34 (Doc. No. 7-2).
A. 	Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires an inmate to exhaust
prison grievance procedures before filing suit in federal court. 	See 42 U.S.C.
§1997e(a); Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 202 (2007); Burns v. Eaton, 752 F.3d 1136,
1141 (8th Cir. 2014). Exhaustion under the PLRA is mandatory. Jones v. Bock, 549
U.S. at 211; Hammett v. Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 949 (8th Cir. 2012). “[T]he PLRA’s
exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life whether they
involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege
excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002).
The PLRA does not prescribe the manner in which exhaustion occurs. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. at 218. 	It merely requires compliance with prison grievance
procedures to properly exhaust. See id. Thus, the question as to whether an inmate
has properly exhausted administrative remedies will depend on the specifics of that
particular prison’s grievance policy. See id.
Pursuant to the ADC’s grievance policy, Administrative Directive 19-34,
inmates are provided Unit Level Grievance Forms as part of the Inmate Grievance
Procedure. See Doc. No. 7-2 at 5. To resolve a problem, an inmate must first seek
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 8

informal resolution by submitting a Step One Unit Level Grievance Form within 15
days after the occurrence of the incident. Id. at 1-2, 7. Inmates are to “specifically
name 	each 	individual 	involved” 	so 	that 	the 	ADC 	may 	complete 	a 	proper
investigation and response. 	Id. at 5. 	The policy provides that only one grievance
form
can be submitted per grievance and only one problem/issue should be
stated in the grievance, not multiple problems/issues. An inmate must
use a separate form for each issue. Only one issue will be addressed.
Additional problems/issues contained in the grievance will not be
considered as exhausted.
Id. 	An inmate must be “specific as to the substance of the issue or complaint to
include the date, place, personnel involved or witnesses, and how the policy or
incident affected the inmate submitting the form.” Id. at 7.
A problem solver investigates the complaint and provides a written response
at the bottom of the form. Id. at 7-8. If the inmate is not satisfied with the resolution
or the problem solver does not respond within three working days, he may then
complete Step Two of the grievance procedure and submit the form as a formal
grievance. Id. at 8. If a formal grievance is medical in nature, it is forwarded to the
appropriate medical personnel for response. Id. at 10.
The inmate should receive a Response to the Unit Level Grievance Form
(Attachment III or IV depending on whether the grievance is medical in nature), or
an Acknowledgement or Rejection of Unit Level Grievance (Attachment II). Id. at
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 8

10-11. If the inmate receives no response, or if the inmate is not satisfied with the
response, the inmate can then appeal to the Deputy Director for Health and
Correctional Programs. 	Id. at 12. An inmate’s appeal must be written in the space
provided on the Response to Unit Level Grievance Form (Attachment III or IV) or
the Acknowledgment or Rejection of Unit Level Grievance (Attachment II). 	Id. at
12. The inmate must include the original Unit Level Grievance Form (Attachment
I) and either the Response to Unit Level Grievance Form (Attachment III or IV) or
the Acknowledgement or Rejection of the Unit Level Grievance (Attachment II)
with his appeal. 	Id. 	If an inmate fails to submit either of the two pages with his
appeal, the appeal may be returned to the inmate as rejected. 	Id. 	The grievance
procedure further provides that in order to complete an appeal, “the inmate must
state a reason for the appeal, and must date, sign, and write the inmate’s ADC
number on the attachment being appealed.” Id.
Once the Deputy Director responds or the appeal is rejected, the grievance
process is complete. Id. at 13. According to the ADC’s grievance policy, the entire
grievance procedure should be completed within 76 working days absent an
extension or unforeseen circumstances. Id. at 14. The grievance policy specifically
states that inmates must exhaust administrative remedies at all levels of the
procedure before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. Id. at 19.
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 8

B. 	Mitchell’s Complaint Allegations & Grievance Records
Mitchell alleged that an earplug broke off in his ear on August 30, 2025, and
he was seen by Nurse Armstrong in the infirmary the next day. Doc. No. 2 at 4-5.
He alleged that Armstrong phoned Bland and requested that Mitchell be sent to the
hospital to have the earplug removed, but Bland refused. 	Id. at 5. Mitchell further
alleged that Bland caused additional injury to his ear while trying to remove the
earplug on September 3, 2025, and then refused to send him to the hospital for further
treatment. Id. at 6.
According to medical grievance supervisor Johnson’s declaration, her office
maintains the ADC’s records relating to the appeals of grievances filed by ADC
inmates. Doc. No. 7-1 at ¶ 3. She reviewed her records and found no record of any
medical grievances submitted by Mitchell from 2018 to the present. 	Id. at ¶¶ 3-4.
Mitchell has not disputed the facts asserted by Johnson.
The Court finds Mitchell failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with
respect to his claims in this case for two reasons. 	First, there is no record of any
grievance or request from Mitchell describing his allegations against Bland. Second,
Mitchell has come forward with no proof that he attempted to grieve Bland’s actions,
but was prevented from doing so.1 In sum, because Mitchell did not grieve his
1 See East v. Minnehaha Cty., 986 F.3d 816, 821 (8th Cir. 2021) (holding that an
inmate need only exhaust available administrative remedies). “Administrative remedies
are not available if ‘prison administrators thwart inmates from taking advantage of a
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 8

complaint allegations and has not shown that he was unable to do so, Bland is
entitled to summary judgment.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, the Court recommends that Bland’s motion for
summary judgment (Doc. No. 5) be granted, and Mitchell’s claims against her be
dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	due 	to 	Mitchell’s 	failure 	to 	exhaust 	available
administrative remedies.
SO RECOMMENDED this 20th day of November, 2025.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
grievance process through machination, misrepresentation, or intimidation.’” Id.
(quoting Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1860 (2016)). Administrative remedies may also
be unavailable if prison officials prevent inmates from utilizing the grievance procedures
or fail to comply with such procedures. See Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339 (8th Cir.
2005); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736 (8th Cir. 2001).
Case 4:25-cv-00960-KGB Document 17 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 8