Pickens v. WC Dub Brassel Detention Center

Opinion

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

GORDON DEAN PICKENS, JR. PLAINTIFF # 114395

v. 4:24CV00407-LPR-JTK

WC DUB BRASSEL DETENTION CENTER, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Defendant Charone Alexander has filed a Motion to Adopt Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 35). In the Motion, Defendant Alexander asks to adopt, in part, Defendant Steve Young’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (Id. at 1). Defendant Alexander specially seeks to adopt “Young’s standing argument . . . as that argument applies equally to Alexander as it does to Young.” (Id). For the reasons set out below, Defendant Alexander’s Motion (Doc. No. 35) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court does not read Defendant Young’s Motion as making any argument in connection with standing. (Doc. Nos. 32, 33). Rather, Defendant Young’s Motion seeks summary judgment in his favor based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. “Standing . . . is a ‘jurisdictional prerequisite.’” Bernbeck v. Gale, 829 F.3d 643, 646 (8th Cir. 2016). The failure to exhaust administrative remedies, however, is not jurisdictional. Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 687 (8th Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted). As the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has explained, “because the existence of jurisdiction is a prerequisite to the evaluation and dismissal of a claim on its merits, it follows that that jurisdiction is not divested by the failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” Id. Because Defendant Young has not made an argument in connection with standing, the Court is uncertain which language or argument Defendant Alexander seeks to adopt. Accordingly, Defendant Alexander’s motion is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23" day of September, 2024.

JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE