Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bacon v. Curry

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

June 10, 2019

ADRIAN N. BACON, Plaintiff,
J. CURRY, ET AL., Defendant.

          Adrian N. Bacon, Pro Se Plaintiff; Laura E. Maughan, Office of the Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for the Defendants.


          James P. Jones United States District Judge

         Adrian N. Bacon, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison officials used excessive force against him. After review of the record, I conclude that Bacon is barred from pursuing some of his claims because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action.


         Bacon makes the following factual claims in his sworn Complaint, which I must accept as true for the present purposes. On May 17, 2018 at Wallens Ridge State Prison (“Wallens Ridge”), Bacon banged on his cell door to get the attention of a correctional officer. Defendants Curry, Byington, Collins, and Harris approached to speak with Bacon, who had his arm resting across the open tray slot. He asked to speak to a supervisor, but the officers refused this request. Curry and Byington removed their canisters of OC spray and threatened to “gas” Bacon.[1]Compl. 1, ECF No. 1. Bacon told them that they could not gas him for wanting to speak to a supervisor. Curry then kicked the tray slot door closed on Bacon's arm approximately four times and sprayed Bacon with OC gas. “Collins, Byington, and Harris stood by without interfering to stop their co-worker from assaulting” Bacon. Id.

         Bacon's § 1983 Complaint names all four officers as defendants. He contends that Curry used excessive force against him, while the others stood by and failed to intervene to prevent Curry's unconstitutional actions. As relief, he seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief providing him a transfer.

         The defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that Bacon failed to exhaust administrative remedies properly before filing this action. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Bacon has responded to their motion, making it ripe for disposition.


         The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) provides that a prisoner cannot bring a civil action concerning prison conditions until he has first exhausted available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This exhaustion requirement is mandatory, Ross v. Blake, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1856 (2016), and “applies to all inmate suits about prison life.” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532 (2002). To comply with § 1997e(a), an inmate must follow each step of the established grievance procedure that the facility provides to prisoners and meet all deadlines within that procedure. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-94 (2006).

         The defendants contend that Bacon did not exhaust available administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. In support of this argument, they present an affidavit from Wallens Ridge Human Rights Advocate B. Ravizee, who is responsible for maintaining grievance files on inmates there.

         Operating Procedure 866.1 is the written administrative remedies procedure that VDOC inmates must follow to comply with § 1997e(a). Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., Ravizee Aff. ¶ 4 & Enclosure A, ECF No. 13-1. Under this procedure, an inmate with a grievance about some event or issue must first make a good faith effort to resolve his concerns informally - by completing an Informal Complaint form and submitting it to prison staff. Id. ¶ 6. He should receive a written response on the bottom of the Informal Complaint form within fifteen days, in order to allow him to initiate the formal grievance procedure by filing a Regular Grievance within thirty days of the occurrence about which he complains. Id. After investigation of the Regular Grievance, the warden or his designee will send the inmate a Level I response. Id. ¶ 8. If the responding official determines the grievance to be unfounded, to complete the exhaustion process, the inmate must appeal that holding to the regional administrator for a Level II response, and in some cases, to Level III. Id.

         The defendants bear the burden of proving the affirmative defense that Bacon failed to exhaust available administrative remedies regarding his claims before filing suit. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 216 (2007). In Ravizee's review of Bacon's grievance file for administrative remedy forms related to the allegations in this lawsuit, none of Bacon's recorded administrative remedy forms complained that Collins, Byington, and Harris failed to intervene to stop Curry's actions against Bacon on May 17, 2018. See Ravizee Aff. ¶¶ 11-12, ECF No. 13-1.

         Ravizee's search did reflect that Bacon submitted Informal Complaint WRSP-18-INF-01192, dated May 17, 2018. Id. ¶ 11 & Enclosure B. Bacon complained that he is asthmatic, but Curry kicked the tray slot door closed on his arm and used OC gas on him without first seeking medical approval. Bacon also filed Informal Complaint WRSP-18-INF-01275, dated May 20, 2018. Id. ¶ 12 & Enclosure C. In it, he complained that Curry should be written up for bringing disciplinary charges against Bacon for the incident on May 17, 2018, [2] when it was Curry who assaulted Bacon that day. Id. Unit Manager Collins received and logged both of Bacon's Informal Complaint forms.

         On May 31, 2018, Lieutenant K. M. Fleming spoke with Bacon to resolve the Informal Complaints. According to Fleming, “Bacon was cooperative during the meeting and admitted to [Fleming] that he was disruptive and had dislodged that tray slot from the cell door on May 17, 2018.” Id. at Fleming Aff. ΒΆ 8, ECF No. 13-2. Given the staff's incident reports and video documentation of the incident on May 17, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.