Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Singleton v. Tangman

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

September 19, 2014

CORRIE SINGLETON, # R31219 Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY TANGMAN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ON PAVEY HEARING AND AMENDED ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MICHAEL M. MIHM, District Judge.

This matter came before the Court on an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Pavey v Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011). Defendant, ANDREW TILDEN, M.D., had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 28] claiming that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, prior to filing this § 1983 action, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Defendants RICHARD ALLEN, JOHN BIRKEL, JAMES BLACKARD, KRISTI ESHELMAN, JOHN GARLICK, EDWARD LEWIS, BRIAN MAIER, DALE SCROGUM, WILLIAM SHELTON, DEREK SMITH and GREGORY TANGMAN subsequently filed a similar motion [ECF 35]. Plaintiff had responded to both Motions for Summary Judgment alleging that remedies were not available to him. [ECF 38]. The Court entered Orders on Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 44, 45], denying Defendants' Motions and setting the matter for Pavey hearing.

The Court, after having conducted an evidentiary hearing with the parties present, FINDS that Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to exhaust administrative remedies as to Defendants ALLEN, BIRKEL, BLACKARD, GARLICK, LEWIS, MAIER, SCROGUM, SHELTON, SMITH TANGMAN and TILDEN and reaffirms the Court's Order denying the Motions for Summary Judgment [ECF 44, 45] as to these Defendants. The Court, however, FINDS that Plaintiff's grievances did not identify Defendant KRISTI ESHELMAN and that Plaintiff did not exhaust his remedies as to this defendant. The Court, accordingly, AMENDS its ORDER on Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF 45], finding there was no exhaustion of remedies as to Defendant ESHELMAN and directs the Clerk to DISMISS her from this case.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed an Amended Compliant on October 25, 2013 alleging: excessive force by Defendants Lewis and Allen; a state law claim of battery as to Defendant Allen; failure to intervene as to Defendants Lewis, Tangman, Maier, Shelton, Scrogum, Birkel, Eshelman, Garlick, Smith and Blackard; retaliation as to Defendants Birkel, Eshelman, Garlick, Tilden and Martens; deliberate indifference on the parts of Defendants Birkel, Eshelman, Garlick, Tilden and Martens; and a due process violation by a John Doe corrections officer.

On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff, Corrie Singleton, was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He claims that on that date staff attempted to forcibly extract him from his cell after he had denied a direct order. Plaintiff claims that during the extraction he was battered, subjected to excessive force, subjected to retaliation by being restrained in 4-point restraints, injected with an unknown medication in violation of his due process rights and treated with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

On June 4, 2012 Plaintiff was transferred to the Tamms Correctional Center. It appears that, while at Tamms, Plaintiff filed two grievances related to the conduct at issue. One was filed September 25, 2012 and the other September 27, 2012. These grievances were denied as untimely since they had not been filed within 60 days of the alleged event. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.810 [ECF 36 Ex. B p 24-25, 10-12]. Plaintiff claimed in his Response to Motions for Summary Judgment, however, that he had filed an earlier, 5/20/2012 grievance to which he had never received a response. It is Plaintiff's position that he could not exhaust as remedies were not available to him [ECF 38 pp. 2-3].

EVIDENCE AT HEARING

The Plaintiff testified via video from the Pontiac Correctional Center. Attorney John Hoelzer was present for defendant, Dr. Andrew Tilden and Attorney Bradley Gillespie was present for the remaining defendants. The Plaintiff, Corrie Singleton, was called to testify and was duly sworn in. Mr. Singleton testified that he was familiar with the grievance process having filed "numerous" grievance in the past. He was aware that an inmate was required to first discuss the grievance with his counselor and then, if not satisfied, to submit the grievance to the grievance officer. Plaintiff testified that he had drafted a grievance, spoken with counselor Jeff Eilts and, on May 20, 2012, handed Eilts the grievance. Plaintiff stated that he never received a reply and was transferred to the Tamms facility about two weeks after having given the grievance to Eilts.

Mr. Singleton testified that he attempted to determine the status of his grievance about one week after his arrival at Tamms. At that time, he spoke with a female Tamms counselor who told him that he would have to wait for Pontiac to forward the reply to Tamms. Plaintiff testified that he never received a reply from either Eilts or Patrick Hastings, the Pontiac Grievance Officer. When Plaintiff again spoke with the Tamms counselor she allegedly told him that he could file directly with the Administrative Review Board, ("ARB"). Plaintiff, however, testified that he knew this not to be the case because if an inmate forwards a grievance to the ARB before receiving a decision from the institution at which it was filed, the ARB will "moot out" the grievance.

When a reply to the grievance was not forthcoming Plaintiff directed a September 25, 2012 letter to the IDOC Director, Salvador Godinez, complaining that his grievance had gone unanswered. On September 25, 2012 and September 27, 2012, Plaintiff filed additional grievances on the matter. These grievances were returned by the ARB as untimely and were not considered on the merits.

Plaintiff was cross examined by attorney Gillespie who pointed out that Plaintiff had testified in court that he handed the grievance to Eilts on May 20, 2012 while in the Affidavit filed with his original Complaint, he claimed to have given the grievance to Eilts on May 17, 2012. Upon cross examination Plaintiff admitted that he had not kept a copy of the May 20, 2012 grievance he had given to Eilts. He did not see Eilts again as he was transferred to Tamms shortly thereafter and did not have an opportunity to inquire of him as to the status of the grievance. Plaintiff testified under cross examination that the September 27th grievance was identical to the May 20th grievance which he had submitted to counselor Eilts, with the exception that the later grievance referred to the earlier one.

Plaintiff was cross examined by attorney Hoelzer who noted that Plaintiff had filed exhibits prior to the hearing [ECF 52], which included a copy of the September 25, 2012 letter he had directed to Director Godinez. In that letter Plaintiff claimed that Eilts had responded to his grievance, that Plaintiff had subsequently forwarded the grievance to Grievance Office Hastings and it was Hastings who had not provided a response. Plaintiff explained that at the time he wrote the Director he had confused two different grievances. The one to which Eilts had responded and Hastings had not, was a different grievance concerning mental health treatment. Plaintiff affirmed that Eilts had never responded to the May 20, 2012 grievance at issue. Mr. Hoelzer asked whether Plaintiff had filed the September 27, 2012 grievance in an effort to reallege the allegations of the "lost" May 20, 2012. Plaintiff initially answered, "No" but then added that the September 27th grievance was identical to the May 20th grievance with the exception that the later grievance referred to the earlier one.

Patrick Hastings, Pontiac Grievance Officer was called by Mr. Gillespie and testified by video. The witness testified that he has been a grievance officer at Pontiac for seven or eight years. Pontiac maintains a grievance log, and an emergency grievance log for each inmate. Mr. Hastings referred to Plaintiff's log explaining that log entries identify the subject of the grievance, assign it a number, contain the inmate's identification number, the dates of receipt and response, and the grievance officer's recommendations. Hastings testified that he enters into the log all of the grievances which he receives. If an inmate sends him a grievance which has not had prior review by the counselor, Hastings returns the grievance to the inmate for follow-up. Hastings testified that he had ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.