Opinion

Tribble v. Hamilton

Court
District Court, S.D. Illinois
Filed
Aug 11, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.2%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

TAWON TRIBBLE, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

vs. ) Cause No. 3:19-cv-1073-GCS

)

)

MICHAEL DUNNING )

and )

KENNETH HAMILTON, )

)

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Tawon Tribble, formerly an inmate within the Illinois Department of

Corrections, brings this action for deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly occurred at Shawnee Correctional Center

(“Shawnee”). Tribble alleges he was choked by another inmate on his way to lunch on

August 25, 2019. (Doc. 14, p. 6). He told Lieutenant Hamilton and Sergeant Dunning, but

nothing was done. Id. The same inmate subsequently assaulted Tribble again. Id. Now

pending before the Court is a July 2, 2020 motion for summary judgment on the issue of

exhaustion of administrative remedies filed by Defendants Hamilton and Dunning. (Doc.

33). Along with the motion for summary judgment, Hamilton and Dunning filed the

required Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 notice informing Tribble of the consequences

of failing to respond to the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 35). As of this date,

Tribble has not responded to the motion for summary judgment.1 For the following

reasons, the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Hamilton and Dunning

is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

The following claim survived the Court’s screening of the complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915A (Doc. 18):

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect against Hamilton and

Dunning.

Lawsuits filed by inmates are governed by the provisions of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Pursuant to the Act, “no action shall be

brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other

Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until

such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Id. “To exhaust remedies,

a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison

administrative rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2005). The

Seventh Circuit requires strict adherence to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, i.e.,

exhaustion must occur before suit is filed. See, e.g., Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th

Cir. 2006)(noting that “[t]his circuit has taken a strict compliance approach to

exhaustion”); Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004).

Here, the record before the Court demonstrates that Tribble failed to exhaust his

administrative remedies regarding any action or inaction by Defendants Dunning and

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), Tribble’s lack of a response could be interpreted as an admission of

the merits of the motions. However, the Court will review the motions on the merits.

Hamilton. Specifically, the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) records reveal that

during the relevant time period, Tribble only filed one grievance to the ARB. This

grievance was related to issues with commissary while at Stateville Correctional Center.

Tribble also filed one grievance at Shawnee prior to the filing of this lawsuit, however,

this grievance was in reference to his Trust Fund account at Shawnee. Neither of Tribble’s

grievances make any mention of the allegations that he was choked by another inmate

on August 25, 2019, nor that Tribble was subsequently assaulted by the same inmate.

Further, none of these grievances make any mention of Defendants Dunning or

Hamilton. Additionally, both of Tribble’s grievances were filed prior to the alleged

assaults. Thus, the Court finds that Tribble failed to exhaust his administrative remedies

as to Defendants Hamilton and Dunning.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of

exhaustion filed by Defendants Hamilton and Dunning (Doc. 33) is GRANTED, and the

claims against Hamilton and Dunning are DISMISSED without prejudice. Further, the

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Digitally signed

DATED: August 11, 2020. teow | 2 pF foe Sison

15:12:21 -05'00'

GILBERTC.SISON

United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.