“[f]or decades, [the Seventh Circuit] ‘has taken a strict compliance approach to exhaustion’”
How later courts described this case
- “[f]or decades, [the Seventh Circuit] ‘has taken a strict compliance approach to exhaustion’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE CHEW-BEY, #N76293, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 23-cv-807-RJD
v. )
)
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK and JOHN )
BALDWIN, )
)
Defendants.
ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this lawsuit
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Doc. 1. He alleged that Defendants violated his Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights during the summer of 2018 at Menard Correctional
Center by allowing him to be exposed to asbestos while he was housed in the “South Lowers” and
a connected building was demolished. Doc. 10. No protection or equipment was provided to
Plaintiff to prevent him from breathing in the asbestos particles during the demolition. Doc. 1,
¶¶20, 21.
Plaintiff was later transferred to Lawrence Correctional Center. Id., p. 12. He submitted
a grievance on May 9, 2021 to the Warden at Lawrence, asking that the grievance be treated as an
emergency. Doc. 1, p. 12. Plaintiff provided the following summary in the grievance:
On April 14, I went to Health Care unit for chest x-ray. On April
15, C. Luking Nurse Practitioner sent for me about 2:30 pm
Thursday to come to health care unit. When I got there I was told
the x-ray shows I had something wrong so I would have to go out to
the hospital to get chest x-ray and CT scan after I took the x-ray…the
Doctor said it was a spot on my lung. When I return to prison the
Page 1 of 3
nurse on duty said the paperwork stated I had asbestosis on my lung
that I would see the doctor the following week cause it was Thursday
and the weekend was coming. I got a pass on Tuesday to see the
doctor show saw me and she said that it [is] nothing wait 3-6 months
and check it again. I ask about a biopsy because that is the only way
to be sure what the spot on my lung is because in 3-6 months it can
spread to my whole lungs and my heart so I can know if it is
asbestosis or cancer. Then on April 28, Head of Department walk
around I talk to Director of Nursing she said she would look into it
but I never heard back from her either. I wrote a request slip to her
still no reply. I know Wexford Medical Company is in the business
of saving IDOC money so my health is no importance.
Id. This grievance was ultimately denied by the Warden at Lawrence. Doc. 32-2, p. 7. Plaintiff
appealed it to the Administrative Review Boar (“ARB”), but the ARB determined that it was not
timely appealed. Id., p. 6. Plaintiff never submitted a grievance at Menard or Lawrence
regarding the alleged asbestos exposure at Menard. Doc. 40, p. 4.
The undersigned granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that the above
grievance did not properly identify the issues in this suit (whether Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to Plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos at Menard). 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(c)
(grievance must contain “factual details regarding….what happened, when, where and the name
of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in the complaint”). Doc. 40.
The Court acknowledged that by the time Plaintiff learned that he had asbestosis, more than sixty
days had passed since his alleged exposure to asbestos at Menard, and grievances must be
submitted within 60 days after discovery of the alleged incident or problem. Id., p. 5. However,
the grievance will still be considered if the inmate can demonstrate good cause for the lapse of
time. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a).
Plaintiff now moves the Court to reconsider its decision granting summary judgment in
favor of Defendants. Doc. 44. The motion was filed within 28 days of the Court’s entry of
Page 2 of 3
judgment and the Court therefore construes this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). See Kiswani v. Phoenix Sec. Agency, Inc., 584 F.3d 741, 742-43 (7th Cir. 2009).
Judgment may be altered or amended under Rule 59(e) if “the court committed a manifest error of
law or fact, or… newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment.” Cincinnati Life Ins.
C. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939, 954 (7th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff presents no newly discovered evidence.1
The record reflects no manifest error of law or fact. Plaintiff never submitted a grievance
regarding asbestos exposure at Menard. In the instant motion, Plaintiff explains that by the time
he discovered that he had asbestosis, more than three years had passed and the only way he could
satisfy the exhaustion requirement was “th[rough] his medical problem.” Doc. 44, p.4. This
argument is not persuasive, considering that the grievance Plaintiff submitted regarding his
asbestosis did not mention that it was allegedly caused by asbestos exposure at Menard.
Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff was required to fully exhaust a grievance regarding the
allegations in his Complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Crouch v. Brown, 27 F. 4th 1315, 1320 (7th
Cir. 2022) (“[f]or decades, [the Seventh Circuit] ‘has taken a strict compliance approach to
exhaustion’”) (internal quotations omitted). He did not do so, and therefore the Motion to
Reconsider (Doc. 44) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 25, 2025
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
1 Exhibits attached to the instant motion were also attached to Plaintiff’s response to the Motion for Summary
Judgment. Doc. 35, pp. 20-24.
Page 3 of 3