United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Urbana Division
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER
DARROW UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
proceeding pro se and presently civilly committed at
Rushville Treatment and Detention Facility, brought the
present lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for events
that allegedly transpired while he was incarcerated within
the Illinois Department of Corrections. The matter comes
before this Court for ruling on the Defendants' Motions
for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies. (Docs. 47, 56). The motions are
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). All facts must be construed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable
inferences must be drawn in his favor. Ogden v.
Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).
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. Indus. 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 v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
filed this lawsuit on December 20, 2016. Pursuant to its
Merit Review Opinion, the Court found that Plaintiff stated
an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a
serious medical need related to a forearm injury Plaintiff
sustained in April 2009.
record discloses seven (7) grievances. The four (4)
grievances Plaintiff filed in 2015 do not address the issues
Plaintiff raised in this lawsuit. See (Doc. 48-2 at
18) (prison officials had thrown away Plaintiff's food);
(Doc. 48-2 at 21) (confiscation of personal property); (Doc.
48-2 at 24) (discipline Plaintiff received for assaulting his
cellmate); (Doc. 48-2 at 26) (excess books; cellmate
masturbating in his presence).
dated September 22, 2016 and December 24, 2016, respectively,
address medical treatment for Plaintiff's forearm injury.
Plaintiff's counselor responded to the September
grievance in January 2017, and the ARB did not respond to
Plaintiff's appeal until February 2017. (Docs. 48-2 at
2-4). Plaintiff sent the December grievance directly to the
ARB, who received it on December 29, 2016. (Doc. 48-2 at
Plaintiff filed a grievance dated March 18, 2016. This
grievance raises issues regarding (1) Plaintiff's medical
treatment at Danville Correctional Center, the facility from
which he was transferred on February 4, 2015; and (2) the
medical treatment Plaintiff received at Lawrence Correctional
Center, the facility where Plaintiff was incarcerated at the
time. Plaintiff originally sent this grievance directly to
the ARB. The ARB denied the grievance as to the Danville
issues as untimely. As to the Lawrence issues, the ARB
directed Plaintiff to attach responses from his counselor and
resubmitted the March grievance to his counselor at Lawrence
on May 31, 2016; the counselor responded to the grievance on
August 22, 2016. (Doc. 48-2 at 12). The record does not
disclose a response from the grievance officer. According to
the file stamps, the ARB received this resubmitted grievance
on September 22, 2016. The ARB denied the grievance as
untimely. (Doc. 48-2 at 9).
to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and therefore the
burden of proof lies with the defendants. Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court
must hold an evidentiary hearing if a disputed issue of
material fact exists, see Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d
739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008), but where none is present, an
evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and the issue of
exhaustion may be decided as a matter of law. Doss v.
Gilkey, 649 F.Supp.2d 905, 912 (S.D. Ill. 2009).
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions
under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law,
by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such ...