IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
December 3, 2008
BRADFORD WHITE, PLAINTIFF,
COUNTY OF COOK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge
Defendants have filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint ("AC"), filed against them by Bradford White ("White"), which recounts an appalling course of conduct on the part of Cook County Department of Corrections ("County Jail") personnel--an account that Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(c) and its caselaw compel defendants to accept as true for the purposes of any affirmative defenses ("ADs") appended to the Answer--see also App. ¶5 to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276, 278 (N.D. Ill. 2001).*fn1 In that respect the Answer is followed by this AD 1:
The Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). See Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004).
Defense counsel is ordered to file, on or before December 12, 2008, a statement as to the administrative remedies that White effectively had available to him in the emergency situation that he confronted, so as to trigger the operation of 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). In addition to that statement, defense counsel are required to explain the bases for the Rule 8(b)(5) disclaimers contained in Answer ¶¶22, 24 and 33 (which ascribe conduct to some defendants themselves, and as to which those defendants must perforce have knowledge).