United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-2388
___________________________
Jay Lloyd Harris
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Deputy Warden Richard Todd Ball, Ouachita River Unit of the Arkansas Division
of Correction; Director Dexter Payne, ADC; Dr. Guy Michael Henry, ORU;
John Doe, Medical Director, ADC; Warden DeAngelo Earl, ADC; WellPath, LLC
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas
____________
Submitted: January 30, 2024
Filed: February 2, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before LOKEN, COLLOTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas inmate Jay Harris appeals following the district court’s1 adverse grant
of summary judgment in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful review of
the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we affirm. See De Rossitte v.
Correct Care Sols., LLC, 22 F.4th 796, 802 (8th Cir. 2022) (reviewing de novo grant
of summary judgment).
Harris challenges the district court’s determination that he failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies with respect to certain claims. He argues the claims
concerned matters that were non-grievable under the prison grievance system. As to
Harris’s claims against Deputy Warden Richard Ball and Arkansas Division of
Correction Director Dexter Payne concerning restrictions on visitation and
communication, we agree with the district court that Harris had available
administrative remedies and failed to exhaust them. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(exhaustion requirement); Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642 (2016) (noting, based on
the language of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, inmates only have to exhaust
“available” administrative remedies–those capable of obtaining some relief). As to
Harris’s claim against Ball, Payne, and Warden DeAngelo Earl concerning Harris’s
work assignment–an issue the prison grievance policy states is non-grievable “unless
in conflict with medical restrictions”–we need not decide whether administrative
remedies were available, as the claim fails for another reason warranting affirmance.
See Brooks v. Roy, 776 F.3d 957, 959-60 (8th Cir. 2015) (noting this court may affirm
on any basis supported by the record). We conclude Harris failed to allege facts
suggesting these defendants were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety,
especially because Harris asserts medical staff consistently refused to provide him
with a medical restriction on outside labor. See Williams v. Norris, 148 F.3d 983,
986-87 (8th Cir. 1998) (listing the requirements for deliberate-indifference claim
1
The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Barry A. Bryant and the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States
Magistrate Judges for the Western District of Arkansas.
-2-
based on work assignments which are inappropriate due to inmate’s medical
condition).
Accordingly, we affirm, but modify the dismissal of the visitation and
communication claims to be without prejudice. See 8th Cir. R. 47B; Porter v. Sturm,
781 F.3d 448, 452 (8th Cir. 2015) (mandating dismissal without prejudice of
unexhausted claim).
______________________________
-3-