The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JOSHUA HOSKINS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-549-DWD
)
JANA RUETER, )
DAVID BROCK, )
GARRICK HALE, )
MICHAEL BAILEY, )
WESLEY SHIRLEY, )
JOSEPH DUDEK, )
ROBERT TOMSHAK, )
CHAD WALL, )
DANIEL HARRISS, )
DONALD WANNACK, )
CHARLES HECK, )
CHARLES SWISHER, and )
JEFFERY DENNISON,1 )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Before the Court are Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the issue of
exhaustion of remedies. (Docs. 76 & 91) The motions are fully briefed (Docs. 78, 92, 97,
113), and the Court held a Pavey evidentiary hearing on June 23, 2021.2 (Doc. 116)
Plaintiff Joshua Hoskins, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Center, brought this action
1 Although the docket lists the final defendant as “Warden of Pinckneyville Correctional Center,”
Defendants identified him as Jeffery Dennison in their answer (Doc. 56) and subsequent filings.
2 Plaintiff filed supplemental briefs on June 28, 2021. (Docs. 117 & 118) Because Plaintiff filed these briefs
without leave of the Court, they are due to be stricken. See SDIL-LR 7.1(c).
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights. Hoskins
claims that while he was incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, Defendants
conspired to force him to tell his psychiatrist that he wished to discontinue the use of
psychotropic medications. (Doc. 1 at 47) He claims that Defendant Rueter threatened to
“fabricate a sexual misconduct disciplinary report” against him if he did not do as
Defendants wished. (Doc. 1 at 47) According to Hoskins, these events took place in May
2020. (Doc. 1 at 47) Hoskins asserts that he filed a grievance concerning these issues by
placing the grievance “in the box through Counselor Reid hands on May 19, 2020 who
was my counselor.” (Doc. 1 at 46) However, he claims that Counselor Reid and Counselor
Wall told him that his grievance would not be processed “due to the nature of the
grievance.” (Doc. 1 at 46) The Court conducted a threshold review of Hoskins’ complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and determined that Hoskins could proceed on the
following claims: (1) First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendants, (2) Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants for interfering with and/or
denying him mental health treatment, and (3) Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendment
claim against Defendants for the unauthorized disclosure of his mental health
information and/or disclosing the information for the purpose of threatening and
humiliating him. (Doc. 7 at 3)
Summary judgment is “proper if the pleadings, discovery materials, disclosures,
and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact such that [Defendants are]
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wragg v. Village of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464, 467
(7th Cir. 2010). Lawsuits filed by inmates are governed by the provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). The Act states, in pertinent part,
that “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. As an inmate confined within the IDOC, Plaintiff was required to follow the
regulations contained in the IDOC’s Grievance Procedures for Offenders (“grievance
procedures”) to exhaust his claims properly. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.800, et seq.
The grievance procedures require inmates to file their grievance with the
counselor within 60 days of the discovery of an incident. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code
§ 504.810(a). The grievance form must
contain factual details regarding each aspect of the offender’s complaint,
including what happened, when, where, and the name of each person who
is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in the complaint. This
provision does not preclude an offender from filing a grievance when the
names of individuals are not known, but the offender must include as much
descriptive information about the individual as possible.
20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.810(c). Grievances that are unable to be resolved through
routine channels are then sent to a grievance officer. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.820(a).
The grievance officer will review the grievance and provide a written response to the
inmate. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.830(a). The grievance officer must submit his
findings to the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”) within two months after receiving
the grievance. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.830(e). The CAO then reviews the findings and
recommendation of the grievance officer and issues a written decision to the inmate. Id.
If the inmate is not satisfied with the response, he can file an appeal with the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.850(a). Only after a
grievance is reviewed by the ARB is it deemed exhausted. See Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286
F.3d 1022, 1023–24 (7th Cir. 2002).
It is undisputed that any grievance filed by Hoskins and related to the allegations
at issue in this case was never processed by a grievance officer, a CAO, or the ARB before
Hoskins filed this lawsuit. (Docs. 78 at 7; 92 at 5; 97 at 1) Defendants argue that even if
Hoskins had filed a grievance immediately on May 19, 2020, he jumped the gun by filing
this lawsuit on June 9, 2020, before the grievance officer’s two-month window to answer
the grievance would have expired. (Doc. 92 at 7) At the evidentiary hearing, Hoskins
explained that he did not wait for the two-month period to lapse because Reid and Wall
told him that his grievance would never be processed. While “[e]xhaustion is necessary
even . . . if the prisoner believes that exhaustion is futile,” prisoners are excused from the
exhaustion requirement if prison officials refuse to “respond to a properly filed grievance
or otherwise use affirmative misconduct to prevent a prisoner from exhausting.” Dole v.
Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 808-09 (7th Cir. 2006).
However, the Court does not credit Hoskins’ testimony. When deciding the
question of exhaustion, the trial court is to resolve disputed questions of fact and make
credibility determinations when needed. Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 901–06 (7th Cir.
2011). Hoskins has filed hundreds of grievances during his incarceration over the past
ten years. (Doc. 78-1) IDOC records indicate that many of these grievances were
processed before, during, and after May 2020. (Docs. 78-1; 78-2; 92-1) However, all parties
agree that no grievance addressing the allegations at issue in this case was processed
before Hoskins filed his complaint with this Court on June 9, 2020.3 (Docs. 78 at 7; 92 at
5; 97 at 1) Other than Hoskins’ allegations of a grand conspiracy organized to punish him
for reporting the misconduct of certain officers to his psychiatrist, there is little to explain
why officers might prevent one grievance from being processed while permitting
hundreds of others. Further, the conspiracy claim is implausible on its face and
inconsistent with the evidence. According to IDOC records, Reid provided two grievance
forms to Hoskins on May 15, and Hoskins was able to submit a grievance regarding
confiscated property to Counselor Mercier on May 19. (Doc. 78-3 at 3) Combined with the
evidence of Hoskins’ numerous other grievance filings, these facts show that he has had
no problem making use of IDOC’s administrative remedies despite the conspiracy
allegedly organized against him. In light of the evidence, the Court finds Hoskins’
testimony at the Pavey hearing to be unpersuasive.4 The Court concludes that Hoskins
did not file a grievance regarding the events at issue in this lawsuit and failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies.
For these reasons, Defendants’ motions for summary judgment as to exhaustion
of administrative remedies (Docs. 76 & 91) are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s supplemental briefs
(Docs. 117 & 118) are STRICKEN. The Court DISMISSES without prejudice Hoskins’
3 Any grievances filed after Hoskins filed this lawsuit cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement, and a
lawsuit may be dismissed “even if the plaintiff exhausts his administrative remedies while the litigation is
pending.” Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2004).
4 While making its own assessment of Hoskins’ credibility, the Court takes judicial notice of other cases in
which courts of this district have found Hoskins to be untruthful. See Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541, 543–44
(7th Cir. 2011); Hoskins v. Johnson, et al., No. 19-cv-1303-GCS (Doc. 98, Dec. 10, 2020); Hoskins v. Dilday, et al.,
No. 16-334-NJR-GCS (Doc. 168, Mar. 12, 2019); Hoskins v. Spiller, et al., No. 17-1121-MJR-MAB (Doc. 82, Jan.
25, 2019); Hoskins v. Spiller, et al., No. 16-1232-MJR-SCW (Doc. 91, July 16, 2018).
claims against Defendants. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
and close the case.
SO ORDERED. “
Dated: June 30, 2021
DAVIDW.DUGAN
United States District Judge