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.

Jose-Nicolas v. Butler

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 6, 2017

OSBALDO JOSE-NICOLAS, R72183, Plaintiff,
v.
KIMBERLY BUTLER, and DR. STROW, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          MICHAEL J. REAGAN United States District Judge.

         This matter is now before the Court on a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams, recommending that this Court grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The underlying case is a Section 1983 civil rights suit against two Defendants for the care Plaintiff received for his wisdom teeth at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”). Magistrate Judge Williams conducted an evidentiary hearing prior to issuing his R&R to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence regarding Plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies for his medical needs. In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Williams found that Plaintiff was not credible, and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff filed a timely objection to the R&R and Defendant Strow responded. The R&R, Plaintiff's objection, and Defendant Strow's response are now before the Court for consideration.

         For the reasons explained below, the undersigned overrules Plaintiff's objections, adopts in full Judge Williams' R&R, and grants summary judgment to Defendants Butler and Strow.

         Procedural & Factual Background

         Plaintiff's underlying complaint alleges that he filed an emergency grievance on July 31, 2014, seeking treatment for his wisdom teeth, and that he followed up on his request for care with a nurse. Despite his requests, Plaintiff alleges that he did not receive a timely response to his need for care. At the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiff testified that he saw Defendant Dr. Strow on July 1, 2014, at which time he alerted the doctor to a problem with his wisdom teeth (Doc. 51 at 7-8). Defendant Strow allegedly prescribed pain medication and told Plaintiff he would be scheduled to have the teeth extracted (Id.). About a month passed with no extraction, so Plaintiff then filed a grievance and left it in the door of his segregation cell for collection (Id.). He was released from segregation on August 5, 2014, but still had not heard anything about his emergency grievance (Id. at 8). In mid-August 2014, Plaintiff informed a nurse at sick call about his wisdom teeth. He was subsequently scheduled for extraction (Id.). Plaintiff claims that he submitted a copy of his July 31, 2014 emergency grievance to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) (Id.). Plaintiff admitted that in the past, he has submitted grievances through emergency and normal channels, and he has received responses to those grievances (Id.).

         Correctional Counselor Susan Hill also testified at the Pavey hearing.[1] She indicated that a review of Plaintiff's grievance records did not reflect any emergency grievances about his wisdom teeth (Doc 51 at 5-6). Likewise, his counseling summaries did not reflect any discussion of dental grievances, though the summaries reflected discussion of other issues he grieved, such as a broken fan or television (Id.).

         David Dwight, office coordinator and administrative support for Menard's grievance office, testified that the grievance logs did not reflect any submissions (emergency or otherwise) by the Plaintiff in July or August of 2014 (Doc. 51 at 6-7). He indicated that a grievance is logged unless it is deficient at the time it is received, in which case it is returned to the inmate and the return is noted on the inmate's counseling summary (Id.).

         After hearing testimony and reviewing the record, Magistrate Judge Williams found that Plaintiff's account was not credible because it did not align with documented grievances (Doc. 15 at 12-16) Documented grievances and testimony from Hill and Dwight revealed that Plaintiff was familiar with the institutional grievance procedures, having used them for other issues (Id.). Plaintiff's successful use of the grievance system for other issues, coupled with the lack of documentation of proper grievances for his wisdom teeth, weighed against crediting Plaintiff's allegation that he filed the appropriate grievance forms regarding his wisdom teeth (Id.). By contrast, Magistrate Judge Williams found Hill and Dwight's testimony to be credible (Id. at 14)

         As to Plaintiff's alternative argument that he did not need to exhaust the grievance procedure because he received all the relief available to him before exhaustion came about, Magistrate Judge Williams rejected that argument as a misapplication of precedent to the facts of this case. Magistrate Judge Williams concluded that exhaustion should not be excused where there was no evidence that a proper grievance was initiated in the first place.

         Plaintiff objected to the R&R, arguing that the recommendation to grant summary judgment was inappropriate in light of the controversy over whether or not Plaintiff filed an emergency grievance about his wisdom teeth (Doc. 52). Additionally, Plaintiff again emphasized the argument that exhaustion was not necessary because he received care for his teeth before the time for filing a new grievance had even expired (Id.).

         Defendant Strow responded to the objection, agreeing with the R&R, and arguing that Plaintiff's argument about exhaustion being unnecessary was irrelevant based on Magistrate Judge Williams' finding that no wisdom tooth grievance was ever filed (Doc. 53).

         Defendant Butler did not respond to the objections to the R&R.

         Legal Standards

         When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's R&R, the district court- giving deference to the magistrate judge's findings of fact and credibility determinations as noted below-must undertake de novo review of the portions ...


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.