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.

Coleman v. Blessing

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

November 1, 2017

DWAINE COLEMAN, B62923, Plaintiff,
v.
JARED BLESSING, DAVID MITCHELL and JAMES VINSON, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          STACI M. YANDLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant David Mitchell's Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that Plaintiff Dwaine Coleman failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. (Doc. 35). The motion is opposed. (Doc. 40). For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.

         Background

         The defendants in this action are Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) employees, and Plaintiff Dwaine Coleman is a former IDOC inmate. Defendant Mitchell asserts that Coleman failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit, thereby violating the Prison Litigation Reform Act exhaustion requirement.

         Coleman filed his initial Complaint on August 13, 2015. (Doc. 1). Upon 28 U.S.C. § 1915A screening, Coleman's Complaint was dismissed for improper joinder and for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 7). The § 1915A Screening Order granted Coleman leave to file an Amended Complaint, and he did so on October 7, 2015. (Doc. 8). However, the Amended Complaint suffered from the same defects as the original Complaint. The Court dismissed Coleman's first Amended Complaint, but recruited counsel to assist him.

         Coleman's Second Amended Complaint was filed on June 3, 2016. (Doc. 16). The Court screened the Second Amended Complaint and held that it articulated the following colorable claims:

Count 1: Defendants Vinson and Blessing subjected Plaintiff to the unauthorized use of excessive force and/or failed to protect him from the same in violation of the Eighth Amendment (Doc. 16, pp. 8-9).
Count 2: Defendant Mitchell retaliated against Plaintiff for threatening to and actually filing a grievance against him by placing him in segregation on or around November 17, 2014 (Doc. 16, pp. 9- 10).

         The general timeline of Coleman's use of the administrative remedies process appears to be undisputed. Coleman alleges that on or about November 17, 2014, he told Mitchell “that he would exercise his protected right to submit a grievance concerning the denial of adequate medical care to which he was constitutionally entitled.” (Doc. 16, p. 9, ¶ 59). Coleman was then an inmate at Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”). Mitchell allegedly threatened Coleman that he would place him in disciplinary segregation if he filed such a grievance. Id. at ¶ 60. Coleman did submit a grievance and Mitchell subsequently placed him in segregation. Id. at ¶ 61-62. Coleman asserts that he was placed in segregation as retaliation for filing the grievance. Id. at ¶ 63.

         The record reflects that Coleman submitted a grievance dated November 17, 2014, which describes the Mitchell segregation retaliation incident. (Doc. 36-2, pp. 23-24). Coleman initially submitted it to the Vienna warden as an “emergency” grievance. Id. The Vienna warden determined that the grievance did not present an emergency and directed Coleman to submit the grievance through the normal non-emergency process. Id. The Vienna warden signed and dated the grievance November 18, 2014. Id.

         The grievance was received by Coleman's counselor, Julia Rodriguez, on December 1, 2014. Id. Rodriguez responded to the grievance on December 22, 2014. Id. After receiving Rodriguez's response, Coleman submitted the grievance to the Vienna prison administration and the Vienna warden denied the grievance on March 2, 2015. Id. at p. 21. Coleman then appealed the decision to the IDOC Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). Id. at p. 20. In a letter dated August 19, 2015, the ARB informed Coleman that his grievance was to be remanded back to Vienna for further investigation. Id. at p. 20.

         After the grievance was remanded, the Vienna grievance officer collected a statement from Mitchell. Id. at p. 17. On September 14, 2015, the Vienna warden again denied the grievance. Id. at p. 17. Coleman then resubmitted the grievance to the ARB and on October 14, 2015, the ARB issued a final denial. Id. at p. 16. Although the ARB did not issue a final ruling on his grievance until October 14, 2015, Coleman initiated this lawsuit on August 13, 2015. (Doc. 1).

         Discussion

         Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court shall grant summary judgment 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.” The facts and reasonable inferences must be drawn in a ...


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.