The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joe Billy Mcdade United States District Judge
E-FILED Thursday, 10 November, 2011 02:16:51 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
This cause is before the court for consideration of Defendants Dr. Sylvia Mahone and Warden Guy Pierce's motions for summary judgment. [d/e 29, 31]
The Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming that his constitutional rights were violated at the Pontiac Correctional Center. On May 17, 2011, the court conducted a merit review of the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A and found that the Plaintiff had adequately alleged that ten Defendants had violated his Eighth Amendment rights when they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical condition. See May 17, 2011 Text Order. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants delayed emergency medical care on November 7 and 8 of 2009 which caused unnecessary pain and suffering. The claim is against the Defendants in their individual and official capacities.
Defendant Guy Pierce and Defendant Sylvia Mahone have each filed motions for summary judgment claiming the Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1997(e). [d/e 29, 31]
The Plaintiff filed a grievance on November 11, 2009, complaining about staff conduct and medical treatment at Pontiac Correctional Center. (Comp., Ex. A, p. 1). The Plaintiff states he returned to Pontiac after having surgery at the University of Illinois Medical Center on October 27, 2009. The Plaintiff says the staff at Pontiac Correctional Center was given his discharge instructions and orders.
The Plaintiff says he woke on November 7, 2009, at approximately 2:30 a.m. with blood coming from his mouth. (Comp, Ex. A, p. 2) The Plaintiff then recounts that despite his repeated requests to numerous individuals, he was denied medical care until he was finally taken back to the hospital at about 10:15 a.m. (Comp., Ex. A, p. 1-2). At the hospital, it was discovered that the Plaitniff was suffering from a post-operative hemmorage. (Comp, Ex. A., p. 1).
The Administrative Review Board denied the Plaintiff's grievance, but noted that "Warden Pierce is to remind staff to adhere to Department policies and procedures for medical emergencies and act accordingly." (Comp., Ex. D).
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.
Defendants Mahone and Pierce claim that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for any claim against them. The ...