The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
ADAMA NJIE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 23-cv-795-RJD
v. )
)
ROB JEFFREYS, ANTHONY WILLS, )
JUSTIN HECHT, JOSHUA SCHOENBECK, )
ANTHONY JONES, SANDY WALKER, )
YVETTE BAKER, JESSICA N. HUFFMAN, )
and JUSTIN M. FRAZER, )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated within the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Docs. 1, 9. He alleges that Defendants violated his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights at Menard Correctional Center by finding him guilty of
drug possession based on a false disciplinary ticket. Doc. 9, p. 7. This matter comes before the
Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed
by Defendants Baker, Jeffrey, and Wills. Doc. 54. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 56) and
Defendants filed a Reply (Doc. 57). As explained further, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Allegations in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2021, he was handcuffed and held in the chapel during
a tactical shakedown of his cell house. Doc. 9, p. 5. Later that day, he was taken to the
Page 1 of 7
segregation unit at Menard and placed in a filthy, rodent and insect infested cell with no mattress,
hygiene items, personal property, or cleaning supplies. Id. Defendant Hecht fabricated a written
disciplinary report that contained statements by Defendants Huffman and Frazer claiming they
found synthetic cannabinoids in Plaintiff’s family photos; Defendants Huffman and Frazer knew
that the test they were using indicated false positive results 80% of the time. Id., p. 6. A few
days later, Plaintiff was moved to another cell in segregation with even worse conditions. Id. On
August 24, 2021 the Adjustment Committee (Defendants Wills, Schoenbeck, Jones, and Walker)
held a disciplinary hearing and found Plaintiff guilty of possession. Id., pp. 6-8, 12. He was
sentenced to six months in segregation and given a pink tag designation, which meant he could not
shower for eight days or attend yard for 30 days. Id., p. 8. One month later, Menard received
lab results that reported “no scheduled substance [was] found” on Plaintiff’s property. Id., p. 9.
Plaintiff submitted a grievance regarding these events that Defendant Baker reviewed on
October 8, 2021. Id. Defendant Baker recommended that the grievance be denied and
Defendant Wills (the Warden) concurred. Id., p. 11. Plaintiff also wrote letters to Defendant
Jeffreys (Director of the IDOC). Id.
Exhaustion Requirements
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), prisoners are required to exhaust available
administrative remedies prior to filing lawsuits in federal court. Inmates who intend to file suit
are required to follow all steps and instructions in the grievance process before filing with the
Court in order to “[allow prisons] to address complaints about the program [they administer] before
being subjected to suit, [reduce] litigation to the extent complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and
[improve] litigation that does occur by leading to the preparation of a useful record.” Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007). An inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections
Page 2 of 7
must first submit a written grievance within 60 days after the discovery of the incident or problem
20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a). A grievance involving discipline is first reviewed by the
prison’s grievance officer.1 Id. The grievance 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.” 20 ILL. ADMIN.
CODE § 504.810(c). If the inmate does not know the name of the person(s) involved, he should
provide “as much descriptive information about the individual[s} as possible.” Id. If more than
sixty days has passed since the discovery of the incident or problem, the grievance will still be
considered if the inmate can demonstrate good cause for the lapse of time. Id. §504.810(a).
The grievance officer must render a written recommendation to the Chief Administrative
Officer — usually the Warden — within 2 months of receipt, “when reasonably feasible under the
circumstances.” Id. §504.830(e). The CAO then advises the inmate of a decision on the
grievance. Id. An inmate may appeal the decision of the Chief Administrative Officer in writing
within 30 days to the Administrative Review Board for a final decision. Id. § 504.850(a); see also
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 806–07 (7th Cir. 2006). The ARB will submit a written report
of its findings and recommendations to the Director who shall make a final determination within
6 months of receipt of the appeal. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(d) and (e).
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can demonstrate “that there is
no genuine dispute 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); see also Ruffin-
1 Grievances involving issues other than discipline and sexual abuse are first reviewed by a counselor at the prison.
20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a).
Page 3 of 7
Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The
moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of any genuine issue of material
fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. In considering a summary judgment motion, the district 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).
Plaintiff’s grievance records
Plaintiff submitted two grievances at Menard regarding the events alleged in his Amended
Complaint. Doc. 54-1. On September 20, 2021 Plaintiff submitted grievance #198-9-21
regarding the disciplinary ticket, adjustment committee hearing, and punishment in segregation.
Id., pp. 16-18. Defendant Baker recommended that the grievance be denied and Defendant Wills
concurred on October 13, 2021. Id., p. 14. Plaintiff appealed Defendant Wills’ decision to the
ARB; the ARB denied the appeal and Defendant Jeffreys concurred. Id., p. 13. Plaintiff also
wrote a letter to Defendant Jeffreys. Id., pp. 29-30.
On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff submitted grievance #341-4-22 regarding the disciplinary
report, hearing, and punishment. Id., pp. 9-10. Plaintiff wrote the following narrative in the
grievance:
Please take notice that on March 23, 2022 Internal Affairs
Correctional Officer Ms. Hoffman and her male coworker came to
this grievant Adama Njie #R11748 then assigned cell east cell house
cell #9-09 and gave me back my 9 paper photos that they alleged
tested positive for a synthetic cannabinoids on August 17, 2021
during a tactical shakedown in the West cellhouse cell #10-24.
However, Correctional Officer Hoffman said that my 9 paper photos
were sent to the Illinois State Police Crime lab and the results of this
said test came back NEGATIVE. Mind you all this happen[ed] after
I did the six months segregation time. My aggression level was
raised from a 2 low to a 12 high, this prison took six months state
Page 4 of 7
pay from me, and this grievant was submitted for a transfer to
Danville Correctional Center. This grievant did not violate any
institutional rules to be placed in punitive segregation for six
months, lost all of privileges, my link units that w[ere] activated on
my account in my tablet I did not use while I was in punitive
segregation. This institution have prove despite no final finding of
wrongdoing on this grievant part this bogus 203 disciplinary report
is still on my disciplinary record. I request that this bogus
disciplinary report be deleted from my disciplinary record to give
me back my six months state pay and be transfer to Danville
Correctional Center immediately. To put back my aggression level
to where it was before I was placed in punitive segregation.
Defendant Baker recommended that the grievance be denied and Defendant Wills
concurred on May 25, 2022. Id., p. 9. Plaintiff appealed the denial and also sent Defendant
Jeffreys a letter regarding the ticket and hearing. Id., pp. 8, 12. A representative of the ARB
returned the grievance, finding that all issues had already been addressed in the ARB’s decision
on Plaintiff’s appeal of grievance #198-9-21. Id., p. 8.
Pavey Hearing
In his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff claimed that the
the ARB’s log of inmate grievances (the “I-GRV”) was not a reliable, exhaustive list of all
grievances submitted to the ARB. Therefore, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
“debatable factual issue” of whether Plaintiff attempted to submit grievances that were
subsequently lost or ignored by the ARB. Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008).
Defendants called ARB representative Travis Bayler who testified that every grievance submitted
by an inmate to the ARB-even those that are returned without a decision on the merits-is identified
on the I-GRV. Regardless, Plaintiff testified that he did not submit any grievances pertaining to
the allegations in this case other than grievance nos. #198-9-21 and #341-4-22. When asked by
defense counsel whether those grievances identified or described Defendants Wills, Baker, and
Page 5 of 7
Jeffreys, Plaintiff testified that Defendants Baker, Wills, and Jeffreys responded to the grievance.
Discussion
Before filing suit against Defendants Baker, Wills, and Jeffreys, Plaintiff was required to
give “notice of, and an opportunity to correct” his allegations that they violated his due process
rights. See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Turley v. Rednour,
729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013)). As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that although
Defendant Wills claims that “the only relation to Plaintiff’s complaints or actions by Defendant[]
Wills w[as] that [he] took part in the grievance process” (Doc. 54, p. 3), the record reflects
otherwise. Plaintiff alleges in the First Amended Complaint that Defendant Wills was part of the
Adjustment Committee and approved the recommended discipline levied against Plaintiff as a
result of the Adjustment Committee Hearing. Doc. 9, pp. 8, 12. Plaintiff’s grievance records
reflect that Defendant Wills signed the final report of the Adjustment Committee, and Defendants
included that report as part of the records submitted by Plaintiff to the ARB. Doc. 54-1, p. 21.
Accordingly, Defendants did not meet their burden in establishing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies against Defendant Wills.
However, Plaintiff never submitted a grievance that identified any of his allegations
against Baker and Jeffreys in this case-namely, that they denied him due process in their review of
his grievances. Neither grievance no. 198-9-21 nor grievance no. 341-4-22 identified any action
or inaction by Defendants Jeffreys and Baker. Simply because Defendants Baker and Jeffreys
responded to Plaintiff’s grievances does not mean that he exhausted his claim against them.
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants Baker and Jeffreys
and denied as to Defendant Wills. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Baker and Jeffreys are
Page 6 of 7
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly at the close of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2025
s/ Reona J. Daly
Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 7 of 7