The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
REMY L. SUANE, #B52215, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 3:21-cv-01343-SMY
)
ALAN NOLLMAN, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53)
and Plaintiff’s Response and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60). For the following
reasons, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED as MOOT.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Remy L. Suane, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed the
instant lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights at
Centralia Correctional Center. He is proceeding on the following claims:
Count 1: First Amendment claim against Defendants for substantially
burdening Plaintiff’s practice of religion by confiscating his
religious medal.
Count 2: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)
claim against Defendants for substantially burdening Plaintiff’s
practice of religion by confiscating his religious medal.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. They assert that Plaintiff filed suit before the relevant grievances were
reviewed by the grievance officer, chief administrative officer (CAO), and the Administrative
Review Board (ARB). Plaintiff argues that a deprivation of religious property “is directly
actionable in federal court” and “exhaustion of remedies does not apply.” (Doc. 60, p. 43). He
also seeks summary judgment on the merits of his claims. (Id., p. 49). As there are no disputed
facts related to the grievances in question, an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544
F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008) is not required.
DISCUSSION
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense properly raised in a
motion for summary judgment to be resolved by the judge. Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740
(7th Cir. 2008). 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); Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust all available administrative
remedies prior to filing lawsuits in federal courts with regard to prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. §
1997e(a). Administrative exhaustion “means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing
so properly.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006). Exhaustion is mandatory – a lawsuit
filed by a prisoner before administrative remedies have been exhausted must be dismissed. Ford
v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (2004).
As an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, 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 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). If the complaint is not resolved through the
counselor, the grievance is then 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 files an appeal with the IDOC Director through the ARB.
20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE §504.850(a). The ARB must receive the appeal within thirty days of the
date of the CAO’s decision. 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).
It is undisputed that Plaintiff submitted three grievances regarding the deprivation of his
religious medal: grievance 21-9-47 dated September 7, 2021; grievance 21-9-103 dated September
8, 2021; and grievance 21-9-245 dated September 23, 2021. These grievances were reviewed by
the grievance officer on December 22, 2021 and denied the same day by the CAO. The ARB
received the appeal of the grievances on January 22, 2022 and issued a decision denying them on
January 26, 2022.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on October 26, 2021, before the grievances were reviewed by
the grievance officer, CAO, and ARB. Because he failed to allow the administrative process to
run its course before filing suit, the grievances do not exhaust his claims. Chambers v. Sood, 956
F.3d 979, 984 (7th Cir. 2020). Plaintiff clearly filed this lawsuit prematurely; it must be
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 53) is
GRANTED; (Doc. 53); Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) is DENIED as moot;
this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; and the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter
judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 1 2022
s/ Staci M. Yandle_____
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge