Frazier v. Glenn

E.D. Arkansas

Frazier v. Glenn

DecidedApril 29, 2024

Docket3:22-cv-00037

StatusUnknown

This text of Frazier v. Glenn (Frazier v. Glenn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frazier v. Glenn, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DOUGLAS FRAZIER PLAINTIFF ADC #151108

v. No. 3:22-cv-37-DPM-ERE

TAMMY GLENN, Nurse Practitioner, Greene County Detention Center; BRENT COX, Chief of Detention, Greene County Detention Center; HANNAH O’NEAL, Medical Employee, Greene County Detention Center; and ESTELLE BLAND, Sanction Program Supervisor/Admin, Medical Department DEFENDANTS

ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ervin’s partial recommendation, Doc. 152, and overrules Frazier’s objections, Doc. 160. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Frazier was in the custody of the Arkansas Division of Community Corrections in November 2020 when Bland allegedly violated his constitutional rights. Doc. 2 at 5; Doc. 27 at 1. He filed several grievances about not getting his HIV medication. Magistrate Judge Ervin concluded, correctly on the record presented, that Frazier failed to exhaust any of those grievances by appealing them. He was later released. Doc. 2 at 6. But he was arrested again in early 2021. And he was in custody when he filed this lawsuit about not getting his medicine. Doc. 2 at 3 & 7. Does the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement apply to Frazier’s claim against Bland? Yes, for several reasons. First, Frazier could have exhausted his administrative remedies while he was in custody. He did not. Second, the “sued when released” precedents he relies on do not apply. E.g., Doe By & Through Doe v. Washington County, 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998). Frazier was in custody when he sued. Napier v. Laurel County, 636 F.3d 218, 221-22 (6th Cir. 2011). More importantly, ADCC’s administrative remedies were available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). His release didn’t render those remedies unavailable in his circumstances. Bland’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. 36, is granted. Frazier’s claims against Bland are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Court directs the Clerk to terminate Bland as a defendant in this case. So Ordered. AID? arnhokl A D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 29 April 2024

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS NORTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DOUGLAS FRAZIER PLAINTIFF ADC #151108

v. No. 3:22-cv-37-DPM-ERE

TAMMY GLENN, Nurse Practitioner, Greene County Detention Center; BRENT COX, Chief of Detention, Greene County Detention Center; HANNAH O’NEAL, Medical Employee, Greene County Detention Center; and ESTELLE BLAND, Sanction Program Supervisor/Admin, Medical Department DEFENDANTS

ORDER On de novo review, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Ervin’s partial recommendation, Doc. 152, and overrules Frazier’s objections, Doc. 160. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Frazier was in the custody of the Arkansas Division of Community Corrections in November 2020 when Bland allegedly violated his constitutional rights. Doc. 2 at 5; Doc. 27 at 1. He filed several grievances about not getting his HIV medication. Magistrate Judge Ervin concluded, correctly on the record presented, that Frazier failed to exhaust any of those grievances by appealing them. He was later released. Doc. 2 at 6. But he was arrested again in early 2021. And he was in custody when he filed this lawsuit about not getting his medicine. Doc. 2 at 3 & 7. Does the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement apply to Frazier’s claim against Bland? Yes, for several reasons. First, Frazier could have exhausted his administrative remedies while he was in custody. He did not. Second, the “sued when released” precedents he relies on do not apply. E.g., Doe By & Through Doe v. Washington County, 150 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 1998). Frazier was in custody when he sued. Napier v. Laurel County, 636 F.3d 218, 221-22 (6th Cir. 2011). More importantly, ADCC’s administrative remedies were available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). His release didn’t render those remedies unavailable in his circumstances. Bland’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. 36, is granted. Frazier’s claims against Bland are dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Court directs the Clerk to terminate Bland as a defendant in this case. So Ordered. AID? arnhokl A D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge 29 April 2024

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frazier v. Glenn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frazier-v-glenn-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack