CROWLEY v. NAILOR ADC ADC ADC ADC ADC (2019)

Arkansas inmate Mark Crowley appeals an order and judgment of the district court ¹ dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We agree that Crowley failed to exhaust his claims before bringing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Whether Crowley’s grievances were deemed emergent or non-emergent, the prison’s policy allowed inmates to appeal even if they received no response to their grievances. As Crowley did not appeal after his grievances went unanswered, and he was not prevented from doing so, he did not exhaust the process. See Porter v. Sturm, 781 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2015) . Crowley’s mistaken belief that an appeal of an unanswered grievance could be submitted only on a grievance decision form did not show that the process was unavailable to him. He offered no evidence to the district court that prison officials prevented him from appealing. See Sergent v. Norris, 330 F.3d 1084, 1085-86 (8th Cir. 2003) (per curiam); Chelette v. Harris, 229 F.3d 684, 688 (8th Cir. 2000). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable Kristine G. Baker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Beth Deere, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.