The opinion of the court was delivered by: Harold A. Baker United States District Judge
Friday, 15 July, 2011 01:56:51 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court are the defendants, Bashirahmed Ameji, M.D., an Terry Fueyo's summary judgment motion  and the plaintiff's response .
Summary judgment should be granted "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). Any discrepancies in the factual record should be evaluated in the non-movant's favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In order to be a "genuine" issue, there must be more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248.
"Summary judgment is the 'put up or shut up' moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events." Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2000). "If a party . . . fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . grant summary judgment if the motion and supporting materials -- including the facts considered undisputed -- show that the movant is entitled to it." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). A party opposing summary judgment bears the burden to respond, not simply by resting on its own pleading but by "set[ting] out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In order to be a "genuine" issue, there must be more than "some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Ind. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). "If [the non-movant] does not [meet his burden], summary judgment should, if appropriate, be entered against [the non-movant]." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Further, "[t]he plaintiff cannot merely allege the existence of a factual dispute to defeat summary judgment .. Instead, he must supply evidence sufficient to allow a jury to render a verdict in his favor." Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919, 926 (7th Cir. 2001). Specifically, the non-moving party "must present sufficient evidence to show the existence of each element of its case on which it will bear the burden at trial." Filipovic v. K&R Express Systems, Inc., 176 F.3d 390, 390 (7th Cir. 1999). Failure by the non-movant to meet all of the above requirements subjects him to summary judgment on his claims.
Affidavits must be based on the personal knowledge of the affiant and "set out facts that would be admissible in evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (emphasis added). Personal knowledge may include inferences and opinions drawn from those facts. Visser v. Packer Eng. Assoc., Inc., 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991). "But the inferences and opinions must be grounded in observation or other first-hand personal experience. They must not be based on flights of fancy, speculations, hunches, intuitions or rumors remote from that experience." Visser, 924 F.2d at 659. It is also well settled that "conclusory allegations and self-serving affidavits, if not supported by the record, will not preclude summary judgment. Keri v. Barod of Trustees of Purdue University, 458 F.3d 620, 628 (7th Cir.2006)(citing Haywood v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 121 F.3d 1066, 1071 (7th Cir.1997).
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs at the hands of Dr. Ameji and Terry Fueyo. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered complications after having blood drawn from his left arm. Plaintiff alleges that the blood draw caused him to have a blood clot that caused him to suffer multiple heart attacks. Plaintiff has clarified in his answers to Defendants Ameji and Fueyo's interrogatories that their treatment of the alleged blood clot is his only basis for his deliberate indifference claim. Further, Plaintiff has clarified that he does not make an excessive force claim against Dr. Ameji or Terry Fueyo. (See Exhibit 1, Plaintiff's answers to Defendant Ameji's interrogatories; and Exhibit 2, Plaintiff's answers to Defendant Fueyo's interrogatories, which can be found attached to Defts.' motion. Based on Plaintiff's clarifications, Defendants Ameji and Fueyo argue that they are entitled to summary judgment. Defendants assert that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to his claims of deliberate indifference and failure to intervene. Defendants assert that Plaintiff does not mention Dr. Ameji or Terry Fueyo in the grievance that he attempted to appeal to the Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections.
Undisputed Material Facts
1. Gina Allen is employed within the Office of Inmate Issues for the Illinois Department of Corrections ("the Department"). The Administrative Review Board ("ARB") is a subdivision of the Office of Inmate Issues, of which she is a chairperson. As an Administrative Review Board chairperson, her duties involve, among other things,reviewing and responding to grievances filed by Department inmates in the manner set forth herein. (Allen Affidavit.)
2. Inmates incarcerated within the Department may file grievances in accordance with Department Rule 504F: Grievance Procedures for Committed Persons (20 Ill. Admin. Code 504.800, et seq.). Subject to certain exceptions, which are set forth by regulation, an inmate must first attempt to resolve his grievances through his counselor. A grievance form is available to inmates for submitting their grievances. The grievance form contains an area for the counselor to respond. After responding to the inmate, the counselor returns the grievance form, with his response, to the inmate. If the grieved issue remains unresolved after the counselor has responded, the inmate may forward this grievance with the grievance counselor's response to the facility grievance officer designated by the Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO"). The CAO is often the warden. The grievance officer may personally interview the inmate and/or other witnesses as deemed appropriate and obtain documents to determine the merits of the inmate's grievance. Upon completion of such investigation, the grievance officer's conclusions and, if appropriate, recommended relief, is forwarded to the CAO. The CAO's, or the CAO's designee's, decision is then submitted to the grieving inmate. (Allen Affidavit.)
3. If after receiving the CAO's decision, the inmate feels the issue is still unresolved, he may appeal in writing to the Director of the Department by submitting the grievance officer's report and the CAO's decision. The ARB, as the Director's designee, reviews the appeal and first determines whether the inmate's grievance can be handled without the necessity of a hearing. If so, the inmate is so advised. Other matters are scheduled for an ARB hearing involving an interview of the grieving inmate, examining relevant documents, and at the ARB's discretion, calling witnesses. The ARB submits a written report of its findings and recommendations to the Director or the Director's designee who then reviews the report and makes a final determination on the grievance. A copy of the ARB's report and the Director's final decision is sent to the inmate who filed the grievance. The originals of these documents are maintained in the ARB's files. Department Rule 504F: Grievance Procedures for Committed Persons (20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.800, et seq.) provides no further means for review beyond ...