# Daniels

> District Court, C.D. Illinois · October 31, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11182445

## Case

- **Full name:** Darrian Daniels v. Zorian Trusewych, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, C.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** October 31, 2025
- **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/11182445

## Opinion text

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION

DARRIAN DANIELS,
Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:25-cv-03089-JEH

ZORIAN TRUSEWYCH, et al.,
Defendants.

Order
This matter is now before the Court on Defendants Dr. Zorian Trusewych’s
and LaToya Hughes’ Motions for Summary Judgment regarding exhaustion of
administrative remedies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule
7.1(D). (Docs. 36, 45). For the reasons stated below, Defendant Trusewych’s Motion
is DENIED, and Defendant Hughes’ Motion is GRANTED.
I
Plaintiff Darrian Daniels, proceeding pro se and incarcerated at Western
Illinois Correctional Center (“Western”), filed an Amended Complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. (Doc. 14). The Court
entered a Merit Review Order allowing Plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth
Amendment claim against Defendant Trusewych based on his alleged deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s hearing impairment and failure to refer him to an
audiologist for treatment in February 2025. (Doc. 13 at p. 9). Due to the lack of
hearing aids, Plaintiff alleged he was forced to communicate in writing, unable to
participate in video conferences with his psychologist, and unable to talk to his
family and attorney on the phone. The Court also allowed Plaintiff to proceed on
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act
(“RA”) against Defendant Hughes, in her official capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), based on the alleged denial of Plaintiff’s
hearing aids at Western. Id.
On August 11, 2025, Defendant Trusewych filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on Exhaustion (Doc. 36), Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. 47), and
Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 51).
On September 22, 2025, Defendant Hughes filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 45), Plaintiff filed
a Response (Doc. 53), and Defendant filed a Reply (Doc. 54).
II
A
As an initial matter, the Court notes Plaintiff failed to properly respond to
any of Defendants’ Undisputed Material Facts in his Responses pursuant to the
Court’s Local Rules. (Docs. 47, 53). Local Rule 7.1(D)(2)(b) provides that a response
to a summary judgment motion must state, in separate subsections: undisputed
material facts, disputed material facts, disputed immaterial facts, undisputed
immaterial facts, and additional material facts. Civil LR 7.1(D)(2)(b)(1)-(4). “A
failure to respond to any numbered fact will be deemed an admission of the fact.”
Id. at (6). Therefore, the Court deems Defendants’ Undisputed Material Facts to
have been admitted by Plaintiff. That being said, the Court will exercise its
discretion by reviewing the materials in the record and the arguments in Plaintiff’s
Responses, as the Court “is confident in its ability to understand which material
facts are actually in dispute.” Latko v. Cox, 2021 WL 5234863, at *2 (7th Cir. Nov.
10, 2021); White v. Felchner, 2021 WL 3223067, at *2 (C.D. Ill. July 29, 2021).
B
Plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of the IDOC and incarcerated at
Western. Defendant Trusewych, a physician employed by Wexford Health
Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), provided medical care to inmates at Western.
Defendant Hughes is the IDOC Director.
On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff wrote a grievance alleging Wexford
employees John and Jane Doe violated his constitutional rights. (Doc. 45-1 at pp.
3-4; Doc. 45-2 at ¶ 10). Plaintiff alleged he experienced hearing loss in both ears
due to injuries, previously failed a hearing test, and was given hearing aids.
Plaintiff claimed Wexford staff tampered with his medical records, there was
nothing in his medical file to indicate he suffered from hearing loss, and he needed
to retake the hearing test.
Plaintiff did not complain about Western’s failure to provide ADA
accommodations, include any reference to Defendant Trusewych by name or
position, or allege any specific act or omission by Defendant Trusewych. Plaintiff’s
grievance, which was dated January 23, 2025, pre-dates Plaintiff’s first visit with
Defendant Trusewych in February 2025, which forms the basis of his deliberate
indifference claim. (Doc. 14 at p. 3).
On February 4, 2025, the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) received
Plaintiff’s grievance, which the ARB identified as “DOC 0046.” (Doc. 45-1 at p. 2).
On April 17, 2025, the ARB returned Plaintiff’s grievance because he failed to
submit responses from the Grievance Officer and Chief Administrative Officer
(“CAO”) with his appeal under Department Rule 504F. Id. The ARB instructed
Plaintiff to provide a copy of the Greivance Officer’s and CAO’s responses. Id.
Plaintiff did not resubmit his appeal to the ARB. (Doc. 45-2 at ¶ 16).
According to his grievance records, Plaintiff did not submit any additional
grievances regarding the allegations in his Amended Complaint. (Doc. 36-1 at ¶
11). However, Plaintiff attached an emergency grievance dated February 3, 2025
to his Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14 at pp. 7-8). Plaintiff grieved Defendant
Trusewych stated there was nothing in Plaintiff’s medical file indicating he ever
failed a hearing test or had any injuries, and as a result, Plaintiff would not be
considered an ADA offender at Western. Id. Plaintiff stated he failed several
hearing tests in the past and received hearing aids in 2022, but the hearing aids
were confiscated in 2024 for retaliatory reasons. Plaintiff stated he was on the list
to get a treatment plan from an audiologist before he was transferred to Western.
In the Relief Requested section, Plaintiff requested treatment for his hearing loss.
Id. at p. 7. Plaintiff asserts Warden Greene did not respond to his emergency
grievance and that he sent her two letters to follow up. (Doc. 47-1 at pp. 1-4).
III
A
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows 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); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322-23 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he court has one
task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there
is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.” Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp.,
24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994). In making this determination, the court must
construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and
draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). “Inferences that are supported by only speculation or
conjecture will not defeat a summary judgment motion.” McDonald v. Vill. of
Winnetka, 371 F.3d 992, 1001 (7th Cir. 2004). In order to successfully oppose a
motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff must do more than raise a
“‘metaphysical doubt’ as to the material facts, and instead must present definite,
competent evidence to rebut the motion.” Michael v. St. Joseph Cnty., 259 F.3d 842,
845 (7th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted).
B
“The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires prisoners with
complaints about prison conditions to exhaust available grievance procedures
before bringing suit in federal court.” Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. 460, 464 (2025).
The defendant has the burden of proving that a plaintiff failed to exhaust
administrative remedies. Banks v. Patton, 743 F. App’x 690, 695 (7th Cir. 2018).
Parties “have a right to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is
intertwined with the merits of a claim . . . .” Perttu, 605 U.S. at 469. Here, the
exhaustion issue is not intertwined with the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. There is
no jury issue regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies.
“To exhaust remedies, a 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). Plaintiff was required to follow
the grievance procedures described in the regulations provided by the IDOC. 20
Ill. Admin. Code § 504.800, et seq. In Illinois, inmates may utilize (1) a normal, non-
emergency grievance procedure, or (2) an emergency grievance procedure.
Under the non-emergency procedure, inmates must follow a three-step
process. First, offenders must try to resolve their issues through their counselor.
§ 504.810. If the issue persists, the offender may file a grievance addressed to the
Grievance Officer within 60 days after the incident was discovered. Id. The
grievance must contain factual details, including what happened, when, where,
and the name of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in
the complaint. § 504.810(c). If the offender cannot name specific individuals, the
offender “must include as much descriptive information about the individual as
possible.” Id. The Grievance Officer will then make a report of findings and
recommendations in writing to the CAO within two months, “when reasonably
feasible under the circumstances.” §§ 504.810(a), 504.830(e). The CAO will advise
the offender of the decision. Id. If the offender is not satisfied with the outcome, he
may appeal to the Director. The appeal must be received by the ARB within 30
days after the date of the CAO’s decision. § 504.850. The ARB will submit a report
to the Director, who will review the findings and make a final determination
within six months after receiving it, “when reasonably feasible under the
circumstances.” § 504.850(e).
A different procedure exists for emergency grievances. Inmates may submit
emergency grievances directly to the CAO. § 504.840. The CAO will determine if
there is “a substantial risk of imminent personal injury or other serious or
irreparable harm” to the inmate that warrants the grievance being handled on an
emergency basis. Id. at (a). If the CAO classifies the grievance as an emergency, the
CAO “shall expedite processing of the grievance and respond to the offender,
indicating what action shall be or has been taken.” Id. at (b). After receiving a
response from the CAO, if the inmate believes his problem or complaint has not
been resolved, he may appeal in writing to the ARB. § 504.850(a). When an inmate
appeals a grievance that has been deemed emergent by the CAO, the ARB “shall
expedite the processing of the grievance.” § 504.850(f).
An inmate who fails to properly take every step of the administrative
process has failed to exhaust his remedies. Chambers v. Sood, 956 F.3d 979, 983 (7th
Cir. 2020). The Seventh Circuit takes a strict compliance approach to exhaustion,
requiring inmates to follow all grievance rules established by the correctional
authority. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). Failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, and defendants have the
burden of proving the inmate had available remedies he did not utilize. Id. A
lawsuit filed by an inmate before he exhausted his administrative remedies must
be dismissed because the court lacks the discretion to resolve the claim on the
merits. Perez v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999); Jones v. Bock,
549 U.S. 199, 223 (2007).
C
Defendants argue Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
with his January 23, 2025 grievance because he did not grieve the allegations in his
Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff did not name or describe Defendant Trusewych or allege that
Defendant Trusewych denied him hearing aids and medical treatment or failed to
refer him to an audiologist. Plaintiff’s grievance also did not allege he was unable
to participate in video meetings with his psychologist or talk with his family and
attorney on the phone.
The Court finds Plaintiff’s January 23, 2025 grievance does not contain
sufficient factual details regarding Defendants or the claims in this case under
§ 504.810(c). A grievance that fails to complain of a defendant’s conduct does not
satisfy the purpose of the exhaustion requirement in affording corrections officials
an opportunity to address complaints internally before a lawsuit is filed. See Hacker
v. Dart, 62 F.4th 1073, 1084 (7th Cir. 2023) (citing Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525
(2002)); see also Roberts v. Neal, 745 F.3d 232, 235-36 (7th Cir. 2014) (failing to identify
the target of a grievance is fatal under Illinois law).
D
Even if Plaintiff’s January 23, 2025 grievance contained sufficient factual
details, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s failure to obtain a final determination from
the ARB bars him from filing suit.
Plaintiff did not submit his grievance to his counselor, the Grievance Officer,
or the CAO. Instead, Plaintiff submitted his grievance directly to the ARB. In his
Response, Plaintiff asserts he sent the grievance directly to the ARB due to the
seriousness of the issue. (Doc. 53 at p. 2).
The Illinois Administrative Code allows inmates to submit grievances
directly to the ARB under certain circumstances, but none of the exceptions apply
to Plaintiff’s January 23, 2025 grievance. See § 504.870(a)(1)-(4). The ARB returned
Plaintiff’s grievance without addressing it on the merits because Plaintiff failed to
attach the Grievance Officer’s report and the CAO’s decision, as required by §
504.850(a). The ARB instructed Plaintiff to resubmit his grievance with the
required forms, but Plaintiff did not do so. Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff did
not exhaust his administrative remedies with his January 23, 2025 grievance.
E
In Plaintiff’s Responses to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff argues he exhausted his administrative remedies by submitting an
emergency grievance on February 3, 2025, naming Defendant Trusewych and
requesting treatment for hearing loss. (Doc. 14 at pp. 7-8; Doc. 47 at p. 3; Doc. 53 at
p. 3). In his grievance, Plaintiff asserted Defendant Trusewych falsely stated there
was nothing in his medical records indicating he failed a hearing test or that he
injured his ears. Plaintiff asserted he failed several hearing tests in the past and
received hearing aids in 2022, which were confiscated in 2024 for retaliatory
reasons. Plaintiff stated he was on a list to get a treatment plan from an audiologist
before he was transferred to Western.
Plaintiff argues Warden Greene ignored his emergency grievance. Plaintiff
states he sent two letters to Warden Greene on February 10 and 19, 2025, to follow
up about his emergency grievance, to no avail. (Doc. 47-1 at pp. 1-4). Plaintiff
argues he waited 60 days for Warden Greene to respond to his grievance and then
filed suit on April 10, 2025. Plaintiff argues he exhausted his available
administrative remedies.
1
In her Reply, Defendant Hughes argues there is no evidence Plaintiff
submitted an emergency grievance on February 3, 2025, because his grievance is
not in his grievance records. Defendant Hughes argues there is no evidence the
grievance process was “unavailable” to Plaintiff because his grievance records
show he wrote other emergency grievances on February 12, 17, and 20, 2025, which
Warden Greene promptly responded to. (Doc. 54-1).
Defendant Hughes also argues Plaintiff’s February 3, 2025 grievance makes
no reference to requesting ADA accommodations. The Court agrees. Although
Plaintiff checked a box on the grievance form for “ADA Disability
Accommodation,” his grievance makes no reference to being forced to
communicate by writing and being unable to participate in video conferences with
his psychologist and talk with his family and attorney on the phone. (Doc. 14 at
pp. 7-8).
Even if Plaintiff submitted an emergency grievance on February 3, 2025, the
Court finds it would not serve to exhaust his administrative remedies against
Defendant Hughes, as it does not contain sufficient factual information under
§ 504.810(c) to place prison officials on notice of his claims related to the ADA and
RA. Therefore, summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendant Hughes.
2
The February 3, 2025 emergency grievance serves to exhaust Plaintiff’s
administrative remedies against Defendant Trusewych, however. The grievance
was timely, identified Defendant Trusewych, and included sufficient information
to place prison officials on notice of the relevant issues regarding Defendant
Trusewych. § 504.810(c).
In his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Trusewych asserts
Plaintiff’s grievance does not contain a counselor’s response and was not appealed
to the ARB. (Doc. 36 at p. 5, ¶ 18). However, Plaintiff checked the box on the
grievance form to indicate his grievance was an emergency. (Doc. 14 at p. 7). Under
the Illinois Administrative Code, Plaintiff was not required to submit the
emergency grievance to his counselor. Instead, Warden Greene was required to
review the grievance and determine if it constituted an emergency. § 504.840.
Plaintiff argues he never received a response from Warden Greene and wrote two
letters to follow up. (Doc. 47-1 at pp. 1-4). Defendant Trusewych does not address
these arguments in his Reply. (Doc. 51).
Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, and the burden is on the defendant to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an administrative remedy was
available to the plaintiff and that he failed to exhaust that remedy. Westefer v.
Snyder, 422 F.3d 570, 577 (7th Cir. 2005). Defendant Trusewych has not met this
burden. Defendant Trusewych failed to refute Plaintiff’s assertion that he
submitted an emergency grievance on February 3, 2025. (Doc. 51). Thus, Plaintiff’s
contention that he submitted an emergency grievance on February 3, 2025 and did
not receive a response from Warden Greene is undisputed. As no disputed issue
of material fact exists, the Court finds a hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544
F.3d 739 (2008), is unnecessary.
The Court finds the grievance process became unavailable to Plaintiff when
he did not receive a response to his emergency grievance from Warden Greene.
“Prison officials may not take unfair advantage of the exhaustion requirement,
however, and a remedy becomes ‘unavailable’ if prison employees do not respond
to a properly filed grievance or otherwise use affirmative misconduct to prevent a
prisoner from exhausting.” Dole, 438 F.3d at 809 (citing Lewis v. Washington, 300
F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002)). Defendant Trusewych’s Motion for Summary
Judgment is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Defendant Zorian Trusewych's Motion for Summary Judgment [36] is
DENIED. Defendant LaToya Hughes' Motion for Summary Judgment
[45] is GRANTED. Defendant Hughes is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to TERMINATE Defendant Hughes.

2) Discovery closes on January 9, 2026, and dispositive motions are due on
February 9, 2026.

It is so ordered.

Entered: October 31, 2025

s/Jonathan E. Hawley
U.S. District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11182445. Public record. Not legal advice.