The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
This cause is before the court for consideration of the defendants' motion for summary judgment. [d/e 24]. The defendants originally filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff asked for additional time to file a response and the court granted the motion. Plaintiff then filed a response to the dispositive motion. On February 21, 2006, the court noted that the defendants' motion asked the court to consider matters outside of the pleadings. The court therefore converted the motion into a motion for summary judgment and gave the plaintiff additional time to file a response. The deadline has passed, and the plaintiff has not filed any further documents with the court. The sole basis of the defendants' motion is the claim that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required.
The plaintiff, a federal prisoner, filed this lawsuit pursuant to Bivens v.Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The plaintiff claims his Eighth Amendment rights were violated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Pekin, Illinois. The plaintiff has named five defendants including: Clinical Director Eddie Samalio, Physicians Assistant Jackson, Physicians Assistant Harris Hansen, Clinical Director Dalmasi, and Clinical Director Angel Ortiz. The plaintiff says the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. Specifically, the plaintiff says he suffers from a hernia and has not received the proper care.
The following facts are taken from the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's response. The defendants state that during the plaintiff's stay at the Federal Bureau of Prisons he has filed at least 11 administrative claims.
On July 23, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Inmate Attempt at Informal Resolution. This claim was identified as Administrative Case No. 305727. The plaintiff stated that he was suffering from severe abdominal pain and was not receiving appropriate medical care. In an attachment, the plaintiff said his symptoms had "since been diagnosed as kidney stones." (Def. Ex, p. 17) The defendants responded that the plaintiff had in fact received appropriate care and denied his claim.
Also on July 23, 2003, the plaintiff filed a Request for Administrative Remedy which stated three claims including: 1) he was denied medical care; 2) he was suffering from kidney stones without appropriate treatment; and 3) he was given medicine that did not help his condition. (Def. Ex, p. 20). The plaintiff's claim was again denied based on treatment he had received.
On August 12, 2003, the plaintiff appealed this decision and claimed he had been forced to live for four months with a kidney condition and five months with a stomach condition. (Def. Ex. P. 22). The plaintiff lost his appeal, and filed a final appeal to National Inmate Appeals on October 24, 2003.
The plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies for this claim when he received a response on December 15, 2003. The Bureau of Prisons again stated that the plaintiff had received adequate care and stated that plaintiff had received a CT scan of his abdomen and pelvis on September 9, 2003 which revealed that the plaintiff also suffered from a hernia. (Def. Ex., p. 26)
On September 10, 2004, the plaintiff filed another Inmate Attempt at Informal Resolution. This claim was identified as Administrative Case No. 352354. The plaintiff specifically complained that he needed a hernia surgery, but it was delayed due to a heart condition. The plaintiff claimed that medical staff was now ignoring his medical condition and needs. The plaintiff's claim was denied and he continued to file appeals until he received a final response from National Inmate Appeals on January 4, 2005.
The plaintiff filed this lawsuit on December 1, 2004.
The entry of summary judgment is proper only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 ...