United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. YANDLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
James Owens, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Lawrence Correctional Center (“Lawrence”).
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendants denied him
adequate medical care for left hip and leg pain. Following
threshold screening, Plaintiff proceeds on one Count of
deliberate indifference against Defendants Warden Lamb, Lt.
McArthy, Dr. John Coe, and a Jane Doe nurse (Doc. 5).
matter is now before the Court on Defendant Coe's Motion
for Summary Judgment Based on Exhaustion (Doc. 27). Plaintiff
filed a timely Response (Doc. 39). Coe asserts that Owens did
not follow proper grievance procedures and therefore failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. Owens attaches a
grievance dated October 31, 2015, and argues that this
emergency grievance exhausted his administrative remedies.
For the following reasons, Defendant Coe's motion is
to Owens' October 31, 2015 grievance, on October 24,
2015, he woke up with pain in his left hip and put in a
request for medication to the HCU (Doc. 39 at 2). Two days
later, his hip was extremely sore and he sent a request for
emergency medical care to Dr. Coe (Id.). He sent Dr.
Coe another request for emergency treatment and a request to
the HCU for interim pain medication on October 27, 2015.
(Id.). He made additional requests to Dr. Coe on
October 28, 2015 and October 29, 2015. Owens was not seen by
anyone in HCU until October 30, 2015 when the nurse checked
his vitals and gave him a shot ordered by Dr. Coe
was not seen by Dr. Coe anytime between October 24, 2015 and
his filing the grievance on October 31, 2015 (Id.).
The relief Owens requested in his emergency grievance was
medical care for his pain. The Chief Administrative Officer
denied the grievance as an emergency on November 3, 2015 and
checked the box stating that Owens should submit his
grievance in the normal manner (Id.).
November 25, 2015, the Administrative Review Board
(“ARB”) received a copy of the October 31, 2015
grievance with the CAO's emergency review (along with two
other grievances). The ARB returned the October 31, 2015
grievance to Owens because he failed to attach a copy of the
Counselor's Response and the Grievance Officer's
Response as required. There is no further documentation
concerning the October 31, 2015 grievance.
careful review of the arguments and evidence set forth in the
parties' briefs regarding the issue of exhaustion, the
Court determined that an evidentiary hearing pursuant to
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) is not
judgment is appropriate only if the moving party can
demonstrate “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); Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322(1986); see also
Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). The moving
party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the lack of
any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477
U.S. at 323.
properly supported motion for summary judgment is made, the
adverse party “must set forth specific facts showing
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986). A genuine
issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Estate of Simpson v.
Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 745 (7th Cir. 2017) (quoting
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). When deciding a summary
judgment motion, the district court views the facts in the
light most favorable to, and draws all reasonable inferences
in favor of, the nonmoving party. Apex Digital, Inc. v.
Sears, Roebuck & Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir.
2013) (citation omitted).
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), inmates are required to exhaust
available administrative remedies before filing lawsuits in
federal court. “[A] suit filed by a prisoner before
administrative remedies have been exhausted must be
dismissed; the district court lacks discretion to resolve the
claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts
intra-prison remedies before judgment.” Perez v.
Wisconsin Dep't of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th
Cir. 1999). “[A]ll dismissals under § 1997e(a)
should be without prejudice.” Ford v. Johnson,
362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004).
inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections must first submit a written grievance within 60
days after the discovery of the incident, occurrence or
problem, to his or her institutional counselor, unless
certain discrete issues are being grieved. 20 Ill. Admin.
Code § 504.810(a). If the complaint is not resolved
through a counselor, the grievance is considered by a
Grievance Officer who must render a written recommendation to
the Chief Administrative Officer - usually the Warden -
within 2 months of receipt, “when reasonably feasible
under the circumstances.” Id.
§504.830(e). The CAO then advises the inmate of a
decision on the grievance. Id.
inmate may appeal the decision of the Chief Administrative
Officer in writing within 30 days to the Administrative
Review Board for a final decision. Id.
§504.850(a); see also Dole v. Chandler, 438
F.3d 804, 806-07 (7th Cir. 2006). The ARB will submit a
written report of its findings and recommendations to the
Director who shall review the same and make a ...