Michael Boyd v. Greg Rechcigl ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 17-2757
    ___________________________
    Michael Lavern Boyd,
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    Doe, Health Services Administrator,
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant,
    Greg Rechcigl, AHSA, East Arkansas Regional Unit; Amanda Sackett, Nurse,
    EARU (originally named as Sackett); Kenneth L. Holder,
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Helena
    ____________
    Submitted: July 26, 2018
    Filed: December 28, 2018
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Arkansas inmate Michael Boyd brought a civil rights action against state
    corrections officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary
    judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and
    Boyd appeals. We review the decision de novo. King v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 
    598 F.3d 1051
    , 1052 (2010).
    We conclude that a genuine dispute of material fact remains as to whether Boyd
    exhausted administrative remedies that were available to him. A corrections official
    rejected Boyd’s grievance appeal on the ground that he did not send all proper
    attachments—namely, the unit level grievance form and two other attachments that
    called for his name, his inmate number, and the date. But Boyd swore in his
    complaint and in his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation that he had
    submitted all necessary grievance attachments, and that corrections officials had not
    returned the attachments to him. Further, the form that Boyd used to appeal the
    grievance determination did not show that he was required to include his name,
    Arkansas Department of Correction number, and date or include spaces for that
    information. There is a material dispute, therefore, about whether Boyd complied
    with the exhaustion requirement, either by submitting all of the required attachments
    at the appeal stage or by submitting whatever attachments were available to him after
    officials failed to return some forms to him with the decision on his grievance. A
    record keeper’s declaration that a prisoner did not exhaust a grievance is insufficient
    to establish non-exhaustion as a matter of law when the prisoner makes sworn
    assertions that he took the necessary steps to exhaust. See Conner v. Doe, 285 F.
    App’x 304, 304 (8th Cir. 2008).
    Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the district
    court for further proceedings. Boyd’s motion for an evidentiary hearing in the court
    of appeals is denied.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2757

Filed Date: 12/28/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2018