Adams v. Richie et al (INMATE 2) (LEAD), No. 2:2019cv00011 - Document 49 (M.D. Ala. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 2/22/2022. (am, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adams v. Richie et al (INMATE 2) (LEAD) Doc. 49 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION BRANDON ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. PATRICE RICHIE, Warden III, et al., Defendants. BRANDON ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. GWENDOLYN BABERS, Mental Health, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv11-MHT (WO) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19cv16-MHT (WO) OPINION Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a state inmate, filed defendant these correctional lawsuits claiming employees and that the healthcare providers violated his constitutional rights by housing him in restrictive housing for 62 days despite his Dockets.Justia.com mental-health condition and by denying mental-health care during that time. him adequate These lawsuits are now before the court on the recommendation of the United dismiss States for Magistrate failure to judgment be granted. recommendation. review of the Judge that exhaust the and/or motions for to summary There are no objections to the After record, an the independent court and concludes de novo that the magistrate judge’s recommendation should be adopted in part and rejected in part. As summary judgment will be granted on all claims, the outcome is the same. The court rejects the recommendation to the extent it recommends correctional exhaust that plaintiff’s defendants be administrative claims dismissed remedies. for against the failure The to only administrative remedy process mentioned in the briefing is that of the defendant private healthcare company, which contracted to provide medical care to inmates in the Alabama Department of Corrections; the Department does not claim to have its own grievance procedure. 2 “Under [42 requirement hinges administrative exhaust U.S.C.] on the remedies: available An remedies, unavailable ones.” (2016). § 1997e(a), the exhaustion ‘availab[ility]’ inmate, but that need of is, not must exhaust Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 “‘[W]here the relevant administrative procedure lacks authority to provide any relief,’ the inmate has ‘nothing to exhaust.’” Id., at 643 (quoting (quoting Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731, 736 and n.4 (2001)). There healthcare has been no provider’s showing grievance that the process private has any “authority” to provide relief for prisoners’ complaints about the employees, actions of Department particularly security-related with decisions restrictive housing. to of regard keep Corrections to their prisoners in Therefore, the court declines to find that the healthcare provider’s grievance procedure was an available remedy as to plaintiff’s claims against correctional defendants regarding the length of 3 his stay in restrictive housing. Whether the private medical provider’s grievance process was available to exhaust plaintiff’s claims for denial of adequate medical care against the correctional defendants--who were not responsible for providing healthcare--is not as straightforward adequately briefed. a question and has not been Rather than wade into the issue, the court simply declines to adopt the recommendation as to that point and will deny the correctional defendants’ motion to dismiss. An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE, this the 22nd day of February, 2022. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
