“[A] judge's function at summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
How later courts described this case
- “[A] judge's function at summary judgment is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GEORGE ROSS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 19-cv-577-DWD
)
WARDEN NICHOLAS LAMB, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff George Ross, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”) currently incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center, brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights while at
Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”). Plaintiff claims Defendants failed to protect
him from an assault by his cellmate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Defendants
Nicholas Lamb, Robbie Tubbs and Mary Weaver have filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 54) on the issue of whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative
remedies prior to filing this lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff has failed to file any response. Under Local Rule 7.1(c), failure
to timely file a response to a motion may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an
admission of the merits of the motion. Here, the Court will treat the lack of response as
an admission of the allegations of undisputed material facts and proceed to determine
whether summary judgment is appropriate on that basis.
BACKGROUND
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on February 2, 2017, he wrote
Weaver (a placement officer) asking for a new cellmate, as his current cellmate had
threatened him if he did not stay in his bunk while both were in the cell. (Doc. 13, p. 8).
Weaver never responded. (Id., p. 9). On February 6, 2017, Plaintiff wrote Warden Lamb
about his concerns and the threats from his cellmate, but received no response. (Id., p.
10).
On February 7, 2017, Plaintiff’s cellmate threatened to kill him. The cellmate threw
hot water on Plaintiff on February 9, 2017, burning him. (Id., pp. 11-12).
After the attack, Plaintiff told Tubbs that he was in pain and needed medical care,
which was refused. (Id., pp. 2-3, 14-15). Plaintiff was seen and treated by a nurse on
February 10, 2017, who noted a burn on his chest and a bruised and swollen left hand.
(Doc. 27). A disciplinary ticket for fighting was later issued to Plaintiff for fighting, and
he was found guilty. (Doc. 54-1, pp. 15-16).
Defendants Lamb, Weaver and Tubbs filed a motion for summary judgment
asserting that Plaintiff failed to adequately exhaust his administrative remedies as to
them, because they are not named or adequately identified in any grievances related to
the incident, and that Plaintiff did not grieve either a failure to protect or denial of medical
care. (Doc. 54).
FINDINGS OF FACT
There is only one relevant grievance in the record, dated March 21, 2017 (Doc. 54-
1, pp. 7-9). In it, he describes the circumstances and details of the February 9 altercation
with his cellmate and disputes the Adjustment Committee’s finding him guilty on the
disciplinary ticket. No mention is made of any warnings of imminent danger he gave
prior to the February 9 incident, nor any request for medical care that was denied. The
grievance was denied, as was his appeal to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”).
(Doc. 54-2, p. 5).
As the material facts regarding the Motion are undisputed, the Court chose not to
hold a hearing on the issue of exhaustion pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th
Cir. 2008).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Legal Standards
Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). In
determining a summary judgment motion, the Court views the facts in the light most
favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex
Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
Courts generally cannot resolve factual disputes on a motion for summary judgment. See
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656 (2014) (“[A] judge's function at summary judgment is
not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether
there is a genuine issue for trial.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
However, when the motion for summary judgment pertains to a prisoner’s failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, the Seventh Circuit has instructed courts to conduct an
evidentiary hearing and resolve contested issues of fact regarding a prisoner’s efforts to
exhaust. Pavey, 544 F.3d at 742. After hearing evidence, finding facts, and determining
credibility, the court must decide whether to allow the claim to proceed or to dismiss it
for failure to exhaust. Wilborn v. Ealey, 881 F.3d 998, 1004 (7th Cir. 2018)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit
about prison conditions unless and until he has exhausted all available administrative
remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Pavey, 544 F.3d at 740. “The exhaustion requirement is an
affirmative defense, which the defendants bear the burden of proving.” Pavey v. Conley,
663 F.3d 899, 903 (7th Cir. 2011). For a prisoner to properly exhaust his administrative
remedies, the prisoner must “file complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time,
the prison’s administrative rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th
Cir. 2002). “[A] prisoner who does not properly take each step within the administrative
process has failed to exhaust state remedies.” Id. at 1024.
As an inmate in the IDOC, Plaintiff was required to follow the grievance process
outlined in the Illinois Administrative Code. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.800, et seq.
(2017). The regulations first require an inmate to file his grievance with his counselor
within 60 days of the discovery of an incident, occurrence, or problem that gave rise to
the grievance. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a). Administrative regulations require
the grievance “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.” 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(c).
If the names of the individuals are unknown to the offender, he can still file the grievance
but “must include as much descriptive information about the individual as possible.” Id.
Further, the Seventh Circuit has held that an inmate is required to provide enough
information to serve a grievance’s function of giving “prison officials a fair opportunity
to address [an inmate’s] complaints.” Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th Cir. 2011).
If the complaint is not resolved through the counselor, the grievance may be
submitted to a grievance officer, who reports his or her findings and recommendations
in writing to the CAO. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.830(e). The CAO then provides the
inmate with a written decision on the grievance. Id.
If the inmate is not satisfied with the CAO’s response, he can file an appeal with
the IDOC Director through the ARB. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE §504.850(a). The ARB must
receive the appeal within 30 days of the date of the CAO’s decision. Id. The inmate must
attach copies of the responses from the grievance officer and CAO to his appeal. Id. The
ARB submits a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Director, who
then makes a final determination. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(d), (e).
An inmate may request that a grievance be handled as an emergency by
forwarding it directly to the CAO. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.840. If it is determined
that there exists a substantial risk of imminent personal injury or other serious or
irreparable harm, the grievance is handled on an emergency basis, which allows for
expedited processing of the grievance. Id
B. Analysis
It is undisputed that Plaintiff submitted only one grievance related to the issues
with his cellmate and subsequent altercation. It is clear that Plaintiff adequately
exhausted that grievance. However, the content of grievance was inadequate to exhaust
his administrative remedies as to Lamb, Tubbs and Weaver. ‘The exhaustion
requirement's primary purpose is to alert the state to the problem and invite corrective
action. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Riccardo v. Rausch, 375
F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir. 2004)). The thrust of Plaintiff's relevant grievance is the
disciplinary ticket he was issued and subsequent finding of guilt. None of the defendants
are named or described, and none of the claims at issue in this lawsuit are mentioned.
The content of the March 21, 2017 grievance is insufficient to alert prison officials that he
was grieving the failure to protect him from a dangerous situation or the failure to get
him adequate medical care in its aftermath. As such, he failed to adequately exhaust his
administrative remedies.
DISPOSITION
The Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion filed by Defendants
Lamb, Tubbs and Weaver (Doc. 54) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against them are
DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED
to enter judgment in their favor at the close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 15, 2021 L,
(lod
David W. Dugan
United States District Judge