Woods v. Jackson County Jail

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DEREK WOODS, #10869, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-02283-JPG

)

CONNIE FAULKENBERRY, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILBERT, District Judge:

Now before the Court for a decision is Defendant Connie Faulkenberry’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. (Doc. 47). Plaintiff

Derek Woods opposes the motion. (Docs. 49, 52). Because the undisputed facts establish that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit, Defendant’s

motion shall be GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Derek Woods filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional

deprivations that occurred at Jackson County Jail (“Jail”). In the Complaint, Plaintiff claims that

he was denied medical care for high blood sugar and diabetes by Nurse Faulkenberry and

Dr. Cooper from Sunday, December 19, 2021 until Tuesday, December 21, 2021. (Doc. 1, p. 3).

He suffered injuries as a result. Id. at 7. Plaintiff seeks money damages from Nurse Faulkenberry,

Dr. Cooper, and the Jail. Id.

Following screening of this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,1 the Court allowed Plaintiff

to proceed with a single claim:

Count 1: Defendant Faulkenberry denied Plaintiff adequate medical care for his

diabetes and high blood sugar on or around December 19-22, 2021, in

violation of his rights under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.

(Doc. 10). This claim did not survive screening against Dr. Cooper or Jackson County Jail, so

these two defendants were dismissed. Id.

Nurse Faulkenberry filed an Answer (Doc. 19) to the Complaint on April 10, 2023 and an

Amended Answer (Doc. 41) raising an affirmative defense based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust

administrative remedies on October 22, 2024. On the same date, the Court entered an Amended

Scheduling Order (Doc. 42) setting a deadline for filing a dispositive motion on the issue of

exhaustion.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Nurse Faulkenberry moved for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion on

December 4, 2024. (Doc. 47). In her motion, Nurse Faulkenberry asserts that Plaintiff was aware

of the grievance process described in the Jackson County Jail Regulations & Inmate Disciplinary

Code. He nevertheless failed to file a valid grievance about the nurse’s allegedly improper medical

treatment from December 19-21, 2021 or exhaust his remedies at each step of the grievance

process. Nurse Faulkenberry seeks summary judgment in her favor and dismissal of the claim

against her. Id.

1 Plaintiff was a “prisoner” when he filed this lawsuit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) (defining “prisoner”).

He listed the address for Jackson County Jail on the envelope used to mail his complaint to the court, see

Doc. 1-2, p. 7. A pro se prisoner’s legal documents are considered filed on the date they are placed in the

mail, see Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 858-59 (7th Cir. 2015). Because this is a prisoner-filed civil suit,

Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

RESPONSE

Plaintiff filed an unsigned Response (Doc. 49) in opposition to summary judgment on

December 23, 2024, which he replaced with a signed Response (Doc. 52) on August 7, 2025.

He opposes only 8 of 47 findings of fact in Nurse Faulkenberry’s motion: Doc. 47, ¶¶ 40-47. His

objections take the form of a commentary. Plaintiff identifies each proposed fact by citing it and

then explains why he disagrees, without citing any material in the record to support his assertions.

He otherwise fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 or the Court’s Amended

Scheduling Order. See Docs. 48, 52. Under the circumstances, Plaintiff’s Response raises no

genuine issues of material fact.2

UNDISPUTED FACTS

A. Background

The following facts are considered undisputed for purposes of this motion (see Doc. 47 to

47-7; Doc. 49): Plaintiff was detained at Jackson County Jail beginning on September 24, 2021.

(Doc. 47-1, ¶ 6). During the relevant time, Nurse Faulkenberry worked at the Jail as a registered

nurse on Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4. She did not work

on weekends and was not “on call.” Id. at ¶ 4. Her job duties included completion of physicals

and medical histories of inmates within two weeks of their arrival. Id. at ¶ 5. She also responded

to sick calls. Id. An inmate in need of medical attention could complete a Jackson County Jail

Request for Medical Treatment. (Doc. 47-1, p. 10). Once received, the Jail’s medical staff triaged

2 Plaintiff describes no genuine issues of material fact in his Response. For example, he blamed the internet

for his inability to resubmit grievances or appeals, but the Court reviewed the record and found no mention

of internet issues. Plaintiff claimed he filed paper grievances, but he produced no copies and cited no

evidence of this in the record. He blamed delays in grievance responses for his failure to exhaust, without

acknowledging the 24 hours allowed for an officer to receive each grievance before beginning the time to

investigate and respond to it, without recognizing the impact of weekends and holidays on the response

time, and without acknowledging grievances submitted just before midnight when calculating this time.

each request and scheduled inmates for appointments, as needed. (Id. at ¶ 11; Doc. 47-2, p. 9).

This included appointments with the prison’s physician, Dr. Kupferer, who was Nurse

Faulkenberry’s employer. (Doc. 47-1, ¶ 3).

On September 27, 2021, Nurse Faulkenberry completed Plaintiff’s medical history and

physical exam. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. He reported his diagnosis with diabetes and his treatment with

Metformin. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Upon examination, Nurse Faulkenberry noted that he was generally

healthy. Id.

Almost three months later, at 4:20 p.m. on Sunday, December 19, 2021, Plaintiff submitted

a Request for Medical Treatment. Id. at ¶ 12. He reported high blood sugar, high blood pressure,

frequent urination, and dizziness. Id. at ¶ 13. He also complained of inadequate medical care. Id.

Nurse Faulkenberry responded at 7:23 a.m. on Monday, December 20, 2021, by stating: “[w]e can

start doing daily Blood sugar checks and I will put you in to see the Dr about your issues.” Id. at

¶ 14. At the time, the nurse knew that Plaintiff was receiving daily medication for his diabetes and

hypertension, so she did not view his condition as presenting an emergency. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff

was required to request blood sugar checks from on-duty officers because the medical staff was

not responsible for going to inmates to offer them. (Id. at ¶ 15; Doc. 47-3 at 36:14 - 37:12). Nurse

Faulkenberry was also not authorized to adjust medications, so she scheduled Plaintiff for an

appointment with Dr. Kupferer. Id. at ¶ 16.

Dr. Kupferer saw patients once a week at the Jail. The doctor and a physician’s assistant

(“PA”) met with Plaintiff on Wednesday, December 22, 2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18; Doc. 47-4). After

examining him, Dr. Kupferer and PA Zimmer increased his diabetes medication, ordered

bloodwork and daily blood sugar checks, and scheduled a follow-up appointment for the next

week. (Doc. 47-1, ¶ 18; Doc. 47-4). They did not send him to the emergency room for treatment.

Id. Nurse Faulkenberry did not participate in this appointment. (Doc. 47-1, ¶ 18; Doc. 47-4).

Later that day, Plaintiff was found passed out in the shower. (Doc. 47-1, ¶ 19; Doc. 47-5).

Dr. Kupferer and Nurse Faulkenberry responded immediately. Id. Although he regained

consciousness, they decided to send him to SIH St. Joseph Memorial Hospital for further

evaluation and treatment. Id. He was discharged the same day. Id.

He next submitted a Request for Medical Treatment at 5:59 p.m. on Thursday,

December 23, 2021. (Doc. 47-1, ¶ 20). Plaintiff complained about being denied his diet food tray

and blood sugar/blood pressure checks. Id. Jail officers are responsible for ensuring that inmates

receive special diet trays, not the medical staff. (Id. at ¶ 22; Doc. 47-6, p. 13). Nurse Faulkenberry

responded at 7:49 a.m. on Friday, December 24, 2021, by agreeing to address the matter but

encouraging Plaintiff to advocate for himself. Id. at ¶ 21.

B. Jackson County Jail Grievance Procedure

Jackson County Jail had a grievance process to address complaints at the Jail before filing

a lawsuit. (Doc. 47-2, p. 22). The procedure is set forth in the Jackson County Jail Regulations &

Inmate Disciplinary Code (“Handbook”). Id. Plaintiff acknowledged his receipt of the Handbook

and his awareness and understanding of the grievance process. (Doc. 47-3, at 98:22-101:3; Doc.

52). Nurse Faulkenberry did not receive or respond to inmate grievances, including those filed by

Plaintiff. (Doc. 47-1, ¶¶ 23-24; Doc. 47-2, p. 21). It was not within her job responsibilities to

address grievances. Id.

C. Plaintiff’s Efforts to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

Plaintiff did not file a grievance complaining about Nurse Falkenberry’s response to his

Request for Medical Treatment dated Sunday, December 19, 2021. (Doc. 47-3, p. 39:19-40:17).

He agreed with her response on Monday, December 20, 2021. Id.

On Wednesday, December 22, 2021, he submitted a grievance to complain of inadequate

medical treatment, including the lack of a diabetic food tray and blood sugar check prior to eating.

(Doc. 47-7 at CF-JCSO 0316-317). Officer Jeremy Partridge responded on Monday,

December 27, 2021, by informing Plaintiff that this was not a valid grievance. Id. Plaintiff did

not resubmit a grievance or appeal the response within 24 hours. (Doc. 47-3, p. 57:23-59:14).

On Thursday, December 23, 2021, Plaintiff submitted another grievance to complain that

he was not getting his blood sugar and blood pressure checks on a regular basis. (Doc. 47-7, CF-

JCSO 0314). Jail officers also responded to this grievance on Monday, December 27, 2021, by

indicating that it was not valid because Plaintiff omitted the date, time, and name of the deputy

who was unable to assist with informal resolution of this issue. Id. Plaintiff did not resubmit a

grievance or appeal within 24 hours. Id.

ANALYSIS

A. Summary Judgment Standard

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). A genuine issue of

material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable [factfinder] could [find] for the

nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party

has the burden of establishing that no material facts are genuinely disputed. Lawrence v. Kenosha

Cty., 391 F.3d 837, 841 (7th Cir. 2004). Any doubt about the existence of a genuine issue must be

resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d

962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

Generally, the court cannot resolve factual disputes on a motion for summary judgment;

they must be decided by a jury. See, e.g., Roberts v. Neal, 745 F.3d 232, 234 (7th Cir. 2014) (“[A]

trial is the standard means of resolving factual disputes. . . .”). The opposite is true when the

motion pertains to a prisoner’s failure to exhaust. The Seventh Circuit has instructed courts to

conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve contested issues of fact regarding a prisoner’s purported

failure to exhaust. See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), abrogated by Perttu v.

Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 468 (2025) (holding that “parties have a right to a jury trial on PLRA

exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh

Amendment”).3 Where there are no material factual disputes, an evidentiary hearing is not

necessary. See Doss v. Gilkey, 649 F. Supp. 2d 905, 912 (S.D. Ill. 2009). No hearing is necessary

here because there are no genuine issues of material fact.

B. Prison Litigation Reform Act

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a prisoner may not bring a lawsuit

about prison conditions until he exhausts available administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);

Pavey, 663 F.3d 899, 903 (7th Cir. 2011). Proper exhaustion is mandatory. Woodford v. Ngo, 548

U.S. 81, 90 (2006). This requires a prisoner to “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); see also Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90. “[A] prisoner who does not properly take each

3 The Supreme Court’s holding in Perttu altered the Court’s ability to conduct a Pavey hearing where a

factual dispute about exhaustion is intertwined with a factual dispute about the merits of a claim governed

by the Seventh Amendment. The defendant in Perttu was implicated in an alleged retaliation claim for

destroying grievances that named him, so factual disputes about exhaustion were necessarily intertwined

with the underlying merits of the retaliation claim. The instant case presents no such intertwinement issue.

step within the administrative process has failed to exhaust his . . . remedies.” Pozo, 286 F.3d at

1024. “The exhaustion requirement is an affirmative defense which the defendants bear the burden

of proving.” Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d at 903.

C. Jackson County Jail’s Grievance Procedure

Jackson County Jail’s Inmate Handbook describes the grievance process used at the Jail.

(Doc. 47-2, p. 22). According to the Handbook, inmates must first attempt to informally resolve

their complaint with staff or other inmates. Id. If informal resolution is not possible, the inmate

has 24 hours from the incident to submit an electronic grievance through the Securus Video

Visitation Station at a kiosk or tablet. Id. The grievance must contain the date and time the incident

occurred, pertinent details about the incident, and the names of any officer or inmate involved. Id.

Once a grievance is submitted, a Jail Division Deputy is assigned within 24 hours to

investigate the grievance. Id. The Jail Division Deputy reviews and investigates the grievance

and returns a response to the inmate electronically within 72 hours. Id. If an inmate is not satisfied

with this response, the inmate has 24 hours to re-file the grievance. Id. If re-filed, the grievance

is submitted to the Jail Division Supervisor within 24 hours for review, investigation, and response

within 72 hours of the supervisor’s receipt of it. Id. If the inmate is not satisfied with the Jail

Division Supervisor’s response, the inmate has 24 hours to re-file the grievance. Id. A re-filed

grievance is submitted to the Jail Administrator within 24 hours for review, and the Jail

Administrator or designee then reviews prior responses and remedies offered, determines whether

further action is necessary, and responds to the inmate within 5 business days. Id. An inmate who

is still not satisfied with the outcome can forward his complaint and grievance to the Illinois

Department of Corrections Jail and Detention Standards Unit. Id.

D. Discussion

The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies before

filing suit. Plaintiff did not file a grievance to challenge Nurse Faulkenberry’s response to his

Request for Medical Care submitted December 19, 2021. He agreed with the nurse’s plan.

He did not exhaust the grievance submitted December 22, 2021. In that grievance, Plaintiff

complained about the denial of a diabetic food tray and blood sugar check before dinner.

On December 27, 2021, Officer Partridge indicated that his grievance was invalid and more akin

to a Request for Medical Treatment. Plaintiff did not resubmit his grievance or appeal this

response at any other level. Nurse Faulkenberry is not mentioned in the grievance, and the

undisputed facts show that she was not responsible for diabetic food trays or blood sugar checks.

Moreover, Nurse Faulkenberry did not meet with Plaintiff to discuss his treatment for diabetes on

that date. Dr. Kupferer and PA Zimmer met with him. Nurse Faulkenberry was not present at the

appointment. The nurse’s only interaction with Plaintiff on that date occurred when she later

learned that he fell in the shower. Nurse Faulkenberry responded without delay, worked with the

doctor to evaluate Plaintiff, and then sent him to the hospital for all further treatment. The

grievance does not mention the defendant, this incident, or any complaints arising from it.

Plaintiff filed a new grievance on December 23, 2021, to complain about the lack of blood

sugar and blood pressure checks. On December 27, 2021, this grievance was also deemed invalid

because Plaintiff omitted the date, time, and name of the deputy who could not resolve the issue

informally. Id. Jackson County Jail’s grievance procedure explicitly states that a grievance must

contain the date and time the incident occurred, pertinent details about the incident, and the names

of any officer or inmate involved. (Doc. 47-2, p. 22). The officer’s rejection of this grievance was

rooted in the explicit language of the Jail’s grievance policy. Without this basic information, there

was no way to tell whether the grievance addressed complaints about Nurse Faulkenberry or

someone else. According to the undisputed facts, the nurse was not responsible for arranging

blood sugar checks. Plaintiff also took no steps to resubmit or appeal this grievance. Id.

The Court now finds that Nurse Faulkenberry is entitled to summary judgment based on

Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his available administrative remedies.

DISPOSITION

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Connie Faulkenberry’s Motion for Summary Judgment

on the Issue of Exhaustion (Doc. 47) is GRANTED. COUNT 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice

because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before bringing this suit.

Because no other claims remain pending, the entire action is DISMISSED.

If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this Order, he may file a notice of appeal with this Court within

thirty days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. 4(a)(1)(A). If he does choose to appeal, Plaintiff

will be liable for the $605.00 appellate filing fee irrespective of the outcome of the appeal. See

FED. R. APP. 3(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Ammons v. Gerlinger, 547 F.3d 724, 725-26 (7th Cir.

2008); Sloan v. Lesza, 181 F.3d 857, 858-59 (7th Cir. 1999); Lucien, 133 F.3d at 467. He must

list each of the issues he intends to appeal in the notice of appeal. If the appeal is found to be

nonmeritorious, Plaintiff may also incur a “strike.” A proper and timely motion seeking

reconsideration of this Order and filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) may toll

the 30-day appeal deadline. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more

than twenty-eight (28) days after the entry of judgment. This 28-day deadline cannot be extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 9/22/2025 s/J. Phil Gilbert

J. PHIL GILBERT

United States District Judge