Johnson v. MCF - St. Cloud

Background

Eugene Laron Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that medical staff at Minnesota Correctional Facility–St. Cloud were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs. He sought money damages and an injunction. After earlier rulings dismissed several claims and defendants, the only remaining claim was Johnson’s deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse S. Holzapfel.

Johnson arrived at the facility on April 6, 2022, and underwent intake screening. He later filed two requests for assistance, called “kites,” about the screening process. He complained that a nurse showed his medical file to another inmate, made him wait until last, and denied him a bottom-bunk restriction. The nurse who followed up with him was Nurse Susan Dahl, but Johnson told Dahl that she was not the nurse involved in his intake.

Johnson submitted a facility grievance on May 12, 2022. The facility notified him that the grievance was untimely, did not include the related kite forms, and raised more than one issue in violation of policy. Johnson had mailed his federal complaint on May 9, before filing that grievance. He later filed an amended complaint. Johnson did not respond to Holzapfel’s motion for summary judgment.

Legal standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Even when a motion is unopposed, the court must determine whether the moving party is legally entitled to judgment. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleadings generously, but that litigant still must identify specific facts supporting a trial.

Prison grievance exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing a federal lawsuit about prison conditions. Exhaustion means completing the prison’s grievance process in compliance with its procedural rules, including applicable deadlines.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections procedure had three steps. First, the prisoner had to try to resolve the issue informally through kites and the facility chain of command. Second, the prisoner had to submit a facility grievance within 30 calendar days of the incident and at least seven days after sending a kite about it. Third, if dissatisfied with the facility response, the prisoner had to appeal to the Department of Corrections’ central office within 21 calendar days after the facility grievance authority signed its response.

The court said the record was unclear about whether Johnson completed the first step. But even assuming that he did, the court found that he failed to complete the second step because he filed his facility grievance 36 days after the April 6 incident, exceeding the 30-day deadline. The court also found no evidence that Johnson completed the third step by appealing to the central office. Because Johnson did not respond to the motion, he offered no explanation for these failures.

Ruling

The court concluded that Johnson failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies and procedurally defaulted his claim. It accepted Holzapfel’s argument that the missed deadlines warranted dismissal with prejudice, meaning the action was dismissed in a way that bars refiling the same claim. Judge John R. Tunheim granted Holzapfel’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that the action be dismissed with prejudice.