The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PATRICK BAKATURSKI, #R62877, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 3:21-cv-00014-GCS
DEANNA BROOKHART, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
SISON, Magistrate Judge:
On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff Patrick Bakaturski, an Illinois Department of
Corrections inmate incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”), filed suit
against Defendants. (Doc. 1). During the merit review of Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on the following count:
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
(Doc. 49, p. 1). The Court also allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint to add a claim
against Lorie Cunningham, the Healthcare Unit Administrator (“HCUA”), for deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. (Doc. 49, p. 10). Now before the Court is
Defendant Cunningham’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
remedies. (Doc. 57, 58). For the reasons delineated below, the motion for summary
judgment is DENIED.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding his medical treatment at
Lawrence (the “August 10th grievance”). (Doc. 58-1, p. 7). In that grievance, Plaintiff
claimed that his right arm had been broken for the past four years, which had resulted in
his limited mobility. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff claimed that earlier in that same year, his
back had been injured three separate times, for which he received physical therapy. Id.
These medical issues made it difficult for Plaintiff to get in and out of his top bunk bed.
Id. Two months prior to this grievance, Plaintiff stated that he had requested, but was
denied, a bottom bunk permit and was told that he would receive physical therapy
treatment for his right arm. Id. In the August 10th grievance, Plaintiff appealed his denial
of the bottom bunk permit and requested a status update regarding treatment for his
right arm. (Doc. 58-1, p. 8). Moreover, at the bottom of the grievance, Plaintiff wrote a
“Note to Grievance Officer,” in which he asked for the grievance to be forwarded back to
“healthcare” so that they could properly address the issue. Id.
In response to Plaintiff’s August 10th grievance, the Grievance Counselor noted
that “as per HCUA, a physical therapy evaluation and physical therapy had both been
completed, and the offender was assessed by the MD.” (Doc. 58-1, p. 6). Based on this
analysis, the Grievance Officer recommended that the grievance be deemed moot. Id. The
Chief Administrative Officer concurred with this decision. Id.
On September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed another grievance regarding the outcome of
his previously filed August 10th grievance (the “September 10th grievance”). (Doc. 58-1,
p. 9). In the September 10th grievance, Plaintiff wrote and attached a letter. Id. In that
letter, Plaintiff stated that his August 10th grievance was answered on August 23, 2019,
and that, on August 27, 2019, Plaintiff was sent to “medical” for physical therapy for his
right arm. Id. However, Plaintiff claimed that the Grievance Officer gave them wrong
information or misunderstood his medical history when that officer responded to
Plaintiff’s August 10th grievance. Id. According to Plaintiff, his physical therapist said
Plaintiff’s right arm might have been broken and may not have healed properly. Id.
Plaintiff noted that he was called for an x-ray of his arm on September 4, 2019, and his
treatment was still ongoing. Id. Plaintiff therefore asked for the grievance to be forwarded
back to Lawrence Health Care so that they could get correct information regarding
Plaintiff’s medical treatment and history. Id. Finally, when seeking relief, Plaintiff
requested that the bottom bunk permit be granted and that his arm be fixed. Id. Plaintiff
also requested the director contact the head of medical for Lawrence or Wexford, so that
they could review his file and give those written findings regarding Plaintiff’s medical
treatment and history to his doctor. Id.
Plaintiff’s September 10th grievance was rejected at the facility level, and Plaintiff
successfully appealed the grievance to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). (Doc.
58-1, p. 5). In response to Plaintiff’s September 10th grievance, the ARB once again denied
Plaintiff a bottom bunk permit, finding that the issue was already appropriately
addressed by the facility Administration. Id. The Acting Director concurred with this
decision. Id.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is proper when a moving party demonstrates that the record
cannot establish the presence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See FED. R. CIV. PROC.
56(a). In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must
provide admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-
moving party. See Maclin v. SBC Ameritech, 520 F.3d 781, 786 (7th Cir. 2008). Traditionally,
the Court’s role in determining a motion for summary judgment is not to evaluate the
weight of the evidence, judge witness credibility, or determine the truth of the matter,
but is instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Nat’l
Athletic Sportwear Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2008). However, in
Pavey v. Conley, the Seventh Circuit held that a judge, rather than a jury, should determine
and resolve factual issues relating to the defense of the failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. 544 F.3d 739, 741 (7th Cir. 2008). If the Court determines that a prisoner did not
exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court will outline one of three potential
outcomes: (a) if the plaintiff still has time to do so, the plaintiff must go back and exhaust
his administrative remedies; (b) if the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust was innocent, as where
prison officials prevent a prisoner from exhausting his remedies, the plaintiff must be
given another chance to exhaust; or (c) if the failure to exhaust was the prisoner’s fault,
the case is over. Id. at 742.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) governs lawsuits filed by inmates and
states that “no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 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.”42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In order to satisfy the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement, prisoners must
strictly adhere to the grievance process. See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir.
2006). Prisoners must exhaust their remedies before filing suit. See Ford v. Johnson, 362
F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff cannot file suit and then exhaust administrative
remedies while that suit is pending. Id. Consequently, if a prisoner fails to use a prison’s
grievance process properly, “the prison administrative authority can refuse to hear the
case, and the prisoner’s claim can be indefinitely unexhausted.” Dole, 438 F.3d at 809.
Prisoners must follow a prison’s administrative rules when exhausting their
remedies. See Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1023 (7th Cir. 2002). As an inmate
confined within the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), Plaintiff is required to
follow the regulations contained in the IDOC’s Grievance Procedures for Offenders
(“grievance procedures”) in order to properly exhaust his claims. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE
§ 504.800, et seq. The grievance procedures require prisoners to submit a grievance to a
counselor within sixty days of discovering the underlying incident. See 20 ILL. ADMIN.
CODE § 504.800. The grievance must state the “factual details regarding each aspect of the
offender’s complaint including what happened, when, the name of any individual
involved, and where the incident occurred.” 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a). If a
prisoner is not satisfied with the counselor’s response to the grievance, then that prisoner
can submit a formal grievance to the prison’s grievance officer. Id. at (a)-(b). The officer
must then review the grievance and provide a written response to the inmate. See 20 ILL.
ADMIN. CODE § 504.830(a). Within two months of receipt of the grievance, when
reasonably feasible under the circumstances, the grievance officer must report findings
and recommendations in writing to the Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”). See 20 ILL.
ADMIN. CODE § 504.830(e). If the prisoner is still not satisfied with the CAO’s decision, the
prisoner can formally appeal to the Director through the ARB within thirty days of the
CAO’s decision. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(a). The inmate must attach copies of
the grievance officer’s report and the CAO’s decision to the appeal. Id. The ARB then
submits its recommendation to the Director, who is then responsible for issuing the
IDOC’s final decision. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(f).
The grievance process also permits an inmate to file an emergency grievance
directly to the CAO. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.840(a). The CAO may determine if
there is a substantial risk of imminent personal injury or other serious harm to the
offender. Id. If the CAO determines that the grievance is a non-emergency, the prisoner
is notified in writing that the prisoner may resubmit the grievance as a non-emergency
and move forward with the standard grievance process. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE
§ 504.840(c).
The statutory purpose of the PLRA is to “afford corrections officials time and
opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal
case.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006); see also Begolli v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 701
F.3d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 2012). This allows the prison administration an opportunity to
fix the problem or to reduce damages and to shed light on factual disputes that may arise
in litigation. See Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1023-24. To allow otherwise would frustrate the purpose
of the grievance process. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 526 (2002). Accordingly, a
prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by filing an untimely or otherwise
procedurally defective grievance. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 83. Unless a prisoner
completes the administrative review process by following the rules established for that
process, exhaustion has not occurred. See Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1023.
ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted in Defendant
Cunningham’s favor because Plaintiff’s August 10th grievance did not describe or grieve
the actions of Defendant Cunningham. (Doc. 58, p. 8). For this reason, Defendants argue
that the August 10th grievance cannot exhaust Plaintiff’s administrative remedies as to
Defendant Cunningham. Id. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s grievances do
sufficiently name Defendant Cunningham, and thus, Plaintiff’s administrative remedies
were exhausted.
The Illinois Administrative Code requires that a prisoner either name the
individuals against whom they are grieving or describe those individuals with “as much
descriptive information about the individual as possible.” 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE
§ 504.810(c). If a grievance officer chooses to address an untimely grievance on its merits,
the grievance “has served its function of alerting the state and inviting corrective
action[.]” Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 721-722 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
A procedural deficiency “amounts to a failure to exhaust only if prison administrators
explicitly relied on that shortcoming.” Id. (internal citations omitted). By responding to a
grievance on its merits, the counselor, grievance officer, and the ARB address the
underlying issues and satisfy the purpose of the exhaustion requirement under the PLRA.
See Kane v. Santos, No. 17-CV-01054-NJR-RJD, 2020 WL 967878, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Feb. 28,
2020).
For example, in Maddox, the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies because he did not name the defendants or describe them in
his grievance. 655 F.3d at 721. The plaintiff had complained about an administrative
decision for which only the defendants in his case had responsibility. Id. at 722. The
Seventh Circuit therefore held that the plaintiff’s grievance served its function by
providing prison officials a fair opportunity to address his complaint even though the
defendant was not specifically named in the grievance because prison administrators
should have known, and in this case, did know, exactly whom to investigate. Id at 722.
Here, Plaintiff clearly provided enough descriptive information in his grievances
to provide prison officials a fair opportunity to address the complaint with Defendant
Cunningham. In the August 10th grievance, Plaintiff requested that the grievance be
forwarded to “healthcare” so that they may address his concerns regarding the approval
of a bottom bunk permit and to provide a status update on the treatment of his right arm.
Furthermore, Plaintiff contended that it had been over two months since he requested
that his arm be fixed. He furthermore contended that healthcare had failed to provide
Plaintiff the necessary therapy within that timeframe. The Grievance Counselor denied
Plaintiff’s request for a bottom bunk permit and recommended that the grievance be
considered moot. The Chief Administrative Officer concurred with this decision. Id.
Consequently, on September 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed another grievance appealing
the outcome of his previously filed August 10th grievance. (Doc. 58-1, p. 9). In the
September 10th grievance, Plaintiff wrote and attached a letter. Id. In that letter, Plaintiff,
once again requested that the bottom bunk permit be granted and that his right arm be
fixed. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff requested that the director contact the head of Medical
for Lawrence or Wexford, so that they could review his file and give those written
findings regarding Plaintiff’s medical treatment and history to his doctor so that he could
be properly treated. Id. In response to Plaintiff’s September 10th grievance, the ARB once
again denied Plaintiff a bottom bunk permit, finding that the issue was already
appropriately addressed by the facility Administration, and the Acting Director
concurred with this decision. (Doc. 58-1, p. 5). As the ARB concurred with the Grievance
Officer’s decision to deny the grievance on its merits, rather than for any technical
deficiency, both the August 10th and September 10th grievance are exhausted.
The Court further finds that, even if the grievances had not been denied on their
merits, Plaintiff sufficiently described Defendant Cunningham pursuant to the
requirements of the Illinois Administrative Code in his August 10th grievance. Lacking
the necessary knowledge to properly identify Defendant Cunningham specifically by
name in his grievances, Plaintiff attempted to name her as “healthcare” and as the “head
of medical for Lawrence.” (Doc. 58-1, p. 7-9). After the merit review, the Court found that
Defendants identified Defendant Cunningham as the “Healthcare Unit Administrator”
of Lawrence. (Doc. 49, p. 8). Therefore, in his grievances, Plaintiff sufficiently described
someone who would be in Defendant Cunningham’s position, which provided enough
information for the prison to properly investigate her actions. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
August 10th grievance has been exhausted against Defendant Cunningham.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc.
58) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Digitally signed
DATED: April 12, 2022. by Judae Sison 2
Albind ©. ey iat Y g
Date: 2022.04.12
14:10:29 -05'00'
GILBERT C. SISON
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 10 of 10