# Mayfield v. Loos

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · October 21, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10646476

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 21, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10646476

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the ARB checked boxes indicating the inmate had not properly followed standard procedure by including copies of his counselor and grievance officer responses, but the ARB did NOT check the box simply inviting more information

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CALVIN MAYFIELD, M35186, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 23-cv-1642-DWD
)
CATHY MCCLURE and SHANNON )
DENMAN, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Calvin Mayfield, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC) brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (Pinckneyville). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants Cathy McClure and Shannon Denman were both mental health
professionals who participated in denying him adequate mental health care. The
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. 100, 101) on the issue of
whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Plaintiff filed a timely
response (Doc. 106), and Defendants replied (Doc. 107). For reasons explained in this
Order, the Defendants’ Motion is denied in full.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint on May 9, 2023. (Doc. 1 at 50).
Relevant to Defendants McClure and Denman, he alleged that McClure created his initial
mental health treatment plan at Pinckneyville which included a recommendation for 30
minutes of one-on-one therapy per month. McClure also engaged with him on a few

occasions. He alleges Denman provided a boilerplate treatment plan in 2022 that did
nothing to address his ongoing mental health needs, and she ignored his requests for
further assistance. Upon initial review, the Court designated this claim:
Claim 1: Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against McClure
and Denman concerning Plaintiff’s access to adequate mental
health care.

(Doc. 8 at 4). Plaintiff later filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 19), but it did not alter the
allegations or claims against McClure or Denman (Doc. 18). There were other claims and
parties in this lawsuit, but those claims and parties were resolved by a settlement earlier
this year.
The parties undertook discovery on the exhaustion of administrative remedies,
and in doing so the Defendants identified several grievances that are potentially relevant
to the sole claim. Of those identified, Plaintiff focused on just four grievances in his
response that he contends were collectively or individually sufficient to exhaust the sole
remaining claim in this case.
FINDINGS OF FACT

In early February of 2022, Plaintiff submitted a grievance about his access to
mental health care and his single-cell status. (Doc. 101-2 at 82). The grievance was
assigned number 513-02-22. (Doc. 101-2 at 80). In a July 6, 2022, response, the grievance
officer indicated that Plaintiff had contact with Cathy McClure on multiple dates from
November 4, 2021, through March 2, 2022. (Doc. 101-2 at 81). On July 6, 2022, the CAO
concurred with the denial of the grievance. The grievance was initially received by the
ARB on August 1, 2022. An ARB official wrote on August 5, 2022, that the grievance was

being returned because Plaintiff failed to provide the “DOC0046”. (Doc. 101-2 at 85).
Plaintiff then requested copies of the “DOC0046” form for grievance 513-02-22, and a
counseling summary indicated he received those copies on September 1, 2022. (Doc. 101-
2 at 86). Plaintiff then re-transmitted the grievance appeal to the ARB where it was
received on September 9, 2022. (Doc. 101-2 at 79). Upon receipt of this second appeal,
the ARB rejected it as received more than 30 days beyond the CAO’s underlying denial

of the grievance. (Doc. 101-2 at 79).
The same exact series of events transpired for grievance 1784-06-22, which Plaintiff
originally filed on June 26, 2022. (Doc. 101-2 at 90-91). In grievance 1784-06-22, Plaintiff
grieved that as of June 2022, he had not received a one-on-one counseling session since
his last session with McClure in November or December of 2021. (Doc. 101-2 at 91). This

grievance was addressed by the grievance office on the same day (July 6, 2022) as
grievance 513-02-22, and it received the same exact response. The CAO affirmed the
denial of the grievance on July 6, 2022. It took the same course to the ARB, was rejected
for lack of a DOC0046, and was later rejected as submitted beyond the 30-day deadline.
(Doc. 101-2 at 87-89, 92).

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiff submitted a grievance concerning an October 29,
2022, interaction with a mental health professional who visited his cell front to secure his
signature on an updated or renewed mental health treatment plan. The grievance was
assigned number 3604-12-22. (Doc. 102-1 at 27). He described this mental health
professional as a “newer black lady—name maybe begin with “D”? (Doc. 101-2 at 29).
He complained that this individual was unwilling to discuss his concerns about the

adequacy or implementation of the plan. (Doc. 101-2 at 29-30). A grievance officer
prepared a response on January 6, 2023, wherein he simply indicated Plaintiff was “being
seen frequently” and that the treatment plan remained the same as the prior year’s plan.
(Doc. 101-2 at 27-28). The CAO agreed with the denial of the grievance on January 6,
2023, (Doc. 101-2 at 27), and the grievance is stamped as received by the ARB on January
17, 2023. On April 24, 2023, the ARB denied the grievance as appropriately addressed by

the administration. (Doc. 101-2 at 26). In response to summary judgment, Plaintiff
submitted an excerpt from his mental health record that reflects on October 29, 2022,
Shannon Denman presented his mental health master treatment plan for signature. (Doc.
106 at 29).
Finally, on January 14, 2023, Plaintiff submitted a grievance assigned number 223-

01-23. (Doc. 101-2 at 53-54). In the grievance he alleged that since September of 2021 he
had experienced an ongoing denial of mental health treatment. He indicated he was
unsure if there was a retaliatory reason for the denial of the care he sought. He
specifically mentioned wanting one-on-one sessions. He further indicated the total lack
of needed care led to a mental health crisis on December 19, 2022. (Doc. 101-2 at 53).

Plaintiff explained that he continued to experience a mental health crisis at the time of
writing the grievance because none of his correspondence of any form about his mental
health needs garnered any needed mental health assistance, and even when he was on
crisis watch in December of 2022 after a self-harm incident he did not timely receive
depression medication and he did not receive additional mental health care. (Doc. 101-2
at 52-53). In response on January 26, 2023, the grievance officer said nothing at all about

the lack of past care, and instead simply indicated that Plaintiff had been seen a handful
of times by mental health professionals and a BHT in “confidential” settings from late
December of 2022 into January of 2023. (Doc. 101-2 at 51-52). The CAO agreed with the
denial of the grievance on January 26, 2023.
Grievance 223-01-23 was stamped as received by the ARB on February 28, 2023.
(Doc. 101-2 at 51). Due to the date of arrival at the ARB, on March 1, 2023, the ARB

rejected the grievance as received more than 30 days beyond the CAO’s ruling. (Doc.
101-2 at 50). Plaintiff submitted an authorization for payment form dated February 6,
2023, for the postage to send grievance 223-01-23 to the ARB. (Doc. 106 at 24). He also
submitted his trust fund account which reflected the deduction of the postage on
February 10, 2023. (Doc. 106 at 28).

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 v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). 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 court is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing if there is no
genuine dispute of material fact, and the determination is purely legal. See e.g., Walker v.
Harris, 2021 WL 3287832 * 1 (S.D. Ill 2021); Miller v. Wexford Health Source, Inc., 2017 WL
951399 *2 (S.D. Ill. 2017).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) 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).

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.
If the inmate is not satisfied with the CAO’s response, he can file an appeal with

the IDOC Director through the Administrative Review Board (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. If an inmate is appealing a grievance that the CAO
determined to be of an emergency nature, then the ARB shall expedite processing of the

appeal. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(f).
B. Analysis

The Court will address the sufficiency of the grievances to exhaust Claim 1 against
Defendants McClure and Denman in chronological order. The Court does not find it is
necessary to hold an evidentiary hearing in this case because the disputes about the
grievances turn largely on legal determinations, and do not require the Court to make
determinations about contested facts.
First, Plaintiff attempted to submit grievances 513-02-22 and 1784-06-22 in
February and June of 2022. The parties ultimately discuss these grievances as they pertain
to exhaustion just for Defendant McClure, so the Court will consider them thru this lens.
Both grievances got the same response from Pinckneyville officials on July 6, 2022. Both

grievances discussed Plaintiff’s need for appropriate mental health treatment, and the
responses discussed encounters Plaintiff had with Defendant McClure during the
relevant time. The ARB received the grievance appeals on August 1, 2022, but rejected
them because neither appeal contained the DOC0046 form---which is the copy of the
offender’s original underlying grievance. Plaintiff then requested these documents from
the prison, he has a counseling summary to prove that he did this, and he retransmitted

the documents to the ARB where they were rejected a second time in September of 2022.
The second rejection was issued because the documents were received at the ARB more
than 30 days after the CAO’s July 6, 2022, ruling.
The Defendants argue that these grievances cannot suffice for exhaustion because
Plaintiff did not fully and properly comply with the grievance rules. Despite the

grievance form from the grievance officer and CAO stating that an appeal must be
accompanied by “a complete copy of the original grievance including the counselor’s
response,” Plaintiff did not transmit the DOC0046 form. The Defendants argue that as
an experienced grievance filer, he should have known that transmitting an incomplete
appeal would not be acceptable. They further argue that he should have remedied the

problem more quickly but waited more than a month to ask his counselor for copies of
the DOC0046. They also contend that when he re-transmitted the appeal to the ARB, it
was sent too late.
Plaintiff counters that only the grievance form itself, but neither the offender
manual nor the Administrative Code specific that a DOC0046 form is required for an

appeal. He contends that because the offender manual is a more recent document, it
controls what is necessary to appeal. He provided a copy of the 2020-2021 offender
manual from Pinckneyville that states “copies of the grievance officer’s report and the
Chief Administrative Officer’s decision should be attached.” (Doc. 106 at 32). He also
argues that on a different occasion when an appeal was missing a DOC0046, the ARB
member checked a box on the return form indicating this specific information was

missing, but with grievances 513-02-22 and 1784-06-22 the ARB person did not check this
box and did not invite the submission of the missing materials. He argues this amounts
to misconduct or action that made the process effectively unavailable to him. In support
of his position that the prison officials thwarted his ability to use the process, he cites to
Dole v. Chandler1, and points out that there the Seventh Circuit indicated the outcome of

the case could have been different if prison officials gave the inmate instructions on how
to fix a problem and how to proceed.
Plaintiff is correct, the Administrative Code and the Pinckneyville Offender
Manual clearly and unequivocally state that the grievance officer and CAO’s response
must be attached to an appeal, but neither of these texts say that the DOC0046 form must

1 Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff discusses Dole for the proposition that he followed
grievance procedures, and the prison administration left him with no clear way forward to remedy a
defective grievance, thus making the process unavailable. Defendants counter in their reply brief that Dole
is not analogous and cuts against Plaintiff’s position. The Court need not analyze the exact reading of Dole
with greater scrutiny because other cases cited in this portion of the analysis bear greater similarity to
Plaintiff’s exact situation in this case.
be attached. The DOC0046 form is the original form that an inmate uses to file a
grievance, and that contains an area for the counselor to respond if a counselor response

is needed for an appeal. (Doc. 101-2 at 90-91). The grievance officer and CAO’s responses
are then provided to the inmate on a DOC0047 form, and that form contains a small box
at the bottom for an inmate to sign when he wishes to transmit an appeal to the ARB.
(Doc. 101-2 at 88-89). In this small box, there is fine print that says, “Attach a complete
copy of the original grievance, including the counselor’s response if applicable, and any
pertinent documents.” (Doc. 101-2 at 18).

Defendants and the ARB have obviously adopted the stance that this text on the
DOC0047 form creates an additional obligation for inmates. The ARB has a “return of
grievance correspondence” form that is transmitted when a grievance is not being
answered on the merits. (Doc. 101-2 at 85). The form has checkboxes where an appeal
can be returned if more information is needed, and that section of the form includes a

checkbox that says: “provide your original grievance, DOC0046, including the
counselor’s response, if applicable.” (Id.). The same section of the form also has a check
box asking the inmate to “return the attached grievance or correspondence with the
additional information requested” to a designated address in Springfield. (Id.).
In Plaintiff’s situation, rather than use the pre-printed check boxes, the ARB

member wrote in the “other” section of the return of grievance form that it was being
returned because “grievant fails to provide DOC0046 therefore unable to review.” (Doc.
101-2 at 85, 92). Plaintiff sought the missing forms from his counselor, received the forms
on September 1, 2022, and re-transmitted them to the ARB. The grievances with the
DOC0046 information arrived back at the ARB on September 9, 2022, but both were then
rejected as received beyond the 30-day timeframe. (Doc. 101-2 at 79, 87).

In Reid v. Balota, 962 F.3d 325 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit considered a
similar situation. The inmate in Reid appealed a grievance, but his appeal was returned
because it did not include a copy of the counselor’s response. The Reid Court noted that
the ARB did NOT check the additional box on the form inviting the inmate to resubmit
his appeal with the counselor’s form, thus leaving the inmate with no way to proceed.
See also, Wilson v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 957 F.3d 828, 833 (7th Cir. 2020) (noting that

the ARB checked boxes indicating the inmate had not properly followed standard
procedure by including copies of his counselor and grievance officer responses, but the
ARB did NOT check the box simply inviting more information). The Reid Court
characterized this series of events and the lack of direction to the inmate as making the
process “obscure” and unavailable. Reid, 962 F.3d at 330; see also Butler v. Orenstein, 2024

WL 4379569 at * 3 (7th Cir. Oct. 3, 2024) (unpublished) (reiterating that if the ARB checks
a box for an appeal missing attachments, but does not give instructions on next steps,
then further redress is unavailable).
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff did all that he could to exhaust grievances 513-
02-22 and 1784-06-22. He submitted timely appeals of these grievances, and the materials

that he submitted complied with the Administrative Directives and the Offender
handbook. When the ARB rejected his materials as incomplete, on both rejection of
grievance forms the ARB official entirely ignored the pre-printed check boxes to indicate
the appeals were missing information, and ignored the check box that would have invited
Plaintiff to remedy the problem. This is similar to the circumstance in Reid, where the
Seventh Circuit found that the ARB’s actions obscured the process and rendered any

further exhaustion effort unavailable. Despite the lack of instruction from the ARB,
Plaintiff made further efforts to remedy the problem by requesting the missing
documents from his counselor and re-submitting his appeal.
The Defendants argue that the re-submission was done slowly and that because
the re-submitted materials arrived at the ARB more than 30 days after the CAO’s final
ruling, the grievance was untimely. Realistically, it is hard to imagine a situation where

an inmate might submit a defective appeal, get a ruling from the ARB identifying the
defect, and have time to fix the defect and re-transmit the appeal all within 30 days of the
CAO’s original signature on the grievance. The grievance process, the institutional mail,
and the United States Postal service all cause a certain amount of unavoidable delays.
The Administrative Code, the offender manual, and the grievance forms themselves

provide no further direction about what an inmate could reasonably do in a situation
such as the one Plaintiff faced. To his credit, unlike other inmates in Reid or Wilson who
did not take any further steps after the ARB rejection, Plaintiff at least tried to remedy the
problem. Thus, on the facts presented, the Court finds that Plaintiff did all that he could
to exhaust these grievances. It is also important to note that these grievances were

processed at all levels at the prison, so the core purpose of the grievance requirement—
to give prison officials notice and a chance to respond—was served regardless of the
procedural defects encountered during the grievance appeal. As such, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations in grievances 513-02-22 and 1784-06-22 were
properly exhausted, and that these grievances are sufficient to satisfy the PLRA’s
exhaustion requirement for the claim against Defendant McClure.

Next, the parties argue about whether grievance 3604-12-22 was sufficient to
exhaust Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Denman. In the grievance, Plaintiff referred
to Denman as a “newer black lady” who visited his cell on October 29, 2022, to have him
sign an updated mental health treatment plan. The Illinois Administrative Code
specifically provides that it 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).
Plaintiff did just this by giving a physical description, a date of the encounter with this
provider, and his best guess, that her name may start with a “D.” If grievance officials
had bothered to review his mental health records, they easily could have seen that on
October 29, 2022, Defendant Denman and Plaintiff both signed his updated master

treatment plan, which he ultimately attached as an exhibit to his summary judgment
response. (Doc. 106 at 29). Thus, the grievance provided sufficient information to readily
identify Denman. See e.g., Jackson v. Esser, 105 F.4th 948, 959-60 (7th Cir. 2024) (nothing in
the PLRA imposes a “name all defendants” requirement, instead a grievance must give
enough information about who caused the problem so that the prison can investigated);

Bakaturski v. Brookhart, 2021 WL 5866920 at * 5 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2021) (inmate’s failure to
explicitly name a defendant in a grievance did not render in insufficient for exhaustion
where the grievance was descriptive, and talked about issues relating to specific care that
only one defendant would have provided). Grievance 3604-12-22 was sufficient to
exhaust Plaintiff’s allegations against Defendant Denman.

Finally, the Defendants initially argued in conjunction with multiple other
grievances that grievance 223-01-23 was not sufficient to exhaust the claims in this case
because it did not clearly name or describe actions by Defendants McClure or Denman.
Plaintiff counters that it clearly covered their conduct as its complaint about his care or
lack thereof over a course of a year when they were both at times assigned as his sole
provider, and when each of them prepared a treatment plan for him. He also argues that

despite this grievance being deemed untimely by the ARB, it should have been
considered timely under the prison mailbox rule. The Defendants state in reply that they
cannot take a position on the mailbox rule issue, but that they maintain the contents of
the grievance was insufficient for exhaustion.
Grievance 223-01-23 was signed by the CAO on January 26, 2024, and the ARB did

not receive the appeal until February 28, 2024. Plaintiff argues that he sent the appeal
with ample time for it to arrive, and he supports his position with proof that he requested
the funds be deducted from his account February 6, and that they were deducted
February 10, 2024. (Doc. 106 at 24, 28). Although the Seventh Circuit has not explicitly
endorsed the applicability of the prison mailbox rule to the PLRA exhaustion context,

many courts in this circuit have applied the prison mailbox rule in this context. See e.g.,
Warren v. Jeffreys, et al., 2023 WL 6605433 at * 6 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2023) (collecting cases for
the proposition that per the prison mailbox rule, a grievance is filed when the prisoner
places it in the mail); Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 858-59 (7th Cir. 2015) (federal courts
generally apply the prison mailbox rule which provides that an inmate’s document is
“filed” at the moment the inmate places it in the prison mail system). Here, the Court

agrees that by February 10 at the latest, Plaintiff had done everything he could to transmit
his appeal to the ARB in a timely fashion. Applying the prison mailbox rule and treating
his appeal as lodged on February 10, 2024, it would have been well within the 30-day
window.
The Court must also consider if the contents of this grievance was sufficient to
exhaust the allegations against Defendants McClure and Denman. In the grievance,

Plaintiff explains that since his arrival at Pinckneyville in September of 2021 he repeatedly
sought mental health care, especially one-on-one treatment. He filed grievances, asked
any mental health professional who he encountered, and he transmitted other
correspondence in an ongoing attempt to secure the care he felt he needed. He explains
that eventually he reached a breaking point in December of 2022 at which time he

engaged in self-harm and was placed on crisis watch. The grievance response all but
ignores Plaintiff’s lengthy complaints about his efforts to secure mental health care from
September of 2021 thru the filing of the grievance in mid-January of 2023. The mental
health response states: “since seeing this MHA on 12/23/22, Mr. Mayfield has been seen
by Brittni Roldan, PNP on 12/26/22, Sydelle Fulk, QMHP on 12/26/22, Erika Moody,

BHT on 1/4/23, and Sydelle Fulk, QMHP on 1/19/23.” This response pales in
comparison to the seriousness of the allegations in Plaintiff’s grievance. The grievance
records and Plaintiff’s allegations throughout the documents in this case demonstrate
that Plaintiff did everything in his power to seek help from the prison. Against this
backdrop, the Court is unwilling to find this grievance insufficient to exhaust Plaintiff's
claims. Plaintiff clearly and unequivocally complained to prison officials in this
grievance that for more than a year his mental health needs had not been met, and the
prison officials chose to limit their response to just a few weeks period after Plaintiff
experienced a mental health crisis and acted out in self-harm. The officials’ selective
response to the grievance does not change the fact that it provided ample notice of
Plaintiff's ongoing mental health struggle. Accordingly, the Court finds that grievance
223-01-23 was also sufficient to exhaust claim 1.
In conclusion, Plaintiff has sufficiently exhausted the grievance process for the
claim in this case against Defendants McClure and Denman. The Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. 100) is denied, and this case shall proceed to merits discovery.
DISPOSITION
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 100)
is DENIED. Claim 1 may proceed against Defendants McClure and Denman. A merits
discovery schedule will issue by separate order.
Plaintiff's Motion for Status (Doc. 103) and Motion for a Copy (Doc. 109) are
GRANTED by the issuance of this Order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of the
docket sheet to Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Lb i
Dated: October 21, 2024 An « WV J
DAVIDW.DUGAN
United States District Judge

Page 16 of 16

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10646476. Public record. Not legal advice.