United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
REONA J. DALY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge
Reona J. Daly by United States District Judge Staci M. Yandle
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and
Recommendation on the question of whether Plaintiff exhausted
his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1997(e)(a). It is RECOMMENDED that
the District Court ADOPT the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law, and
GRANT Defendants' Motions for Summary
Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion (Docs. 46 and 49).
Bradly Beehn, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Shawnee Correctional Center (“Shawnee”). In
particular, Plaintiff alleges he regularly complained of
severe stomach pain while at Shawnee in 2016, but his
complaints were not adequately addressed. Plaintiff is
proceeding on the following claims:
Count One: Dr. David, Jane Doe, Dr. Matticks, and Warden
Dennison were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff's
irritable bowel syndrome when they refused to arrange for
adequate testing and instead instructed him to keep feces in
his cell and walk the feces to the health care unit.
Count Two: Dr. Matticks and Wexford had an unconstitutional
policy or custom whereby they created a policy to cut costs
at the expense of providing adequate medical care to inmates.
Count Three: Warden Dennison knew that the bathroom on the
prison yard was kept locked at all times, creating an
unconstitutional condition of confinement in violation of the
Dennison and Defendants Wexford, Matticks, and David filed
motions for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this
lawsuit (Docs. 46 and 49). In support of their motions,
Defendants assert that Plaintiff never submitted a grievance
complaining about the issues in this lawsuit to the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). Plaintiff
disputes Defendants' argument and relies on two
grievances to demonstrate exhaustion.
first grievance, dated May 13, 2016 (Doc.
58-3 at 1-2), Plaintiff explains that he went to the
healthcare unit in April for abdominal pain and irritable
bowels. Plaintiff complains that he was prescribed pills that
were only a temporary fix and he has a much more severe
problem. Plaintiff generally asserts that his medical
treatment has been deficient as he was not given an x-ray or
scheduled for a follow-up exam. Plaintiff's counselor
responded to this grievance on July 25, 2016. “Send to
grievance officer” was written on the second page of
this grievance. Plaintiff contends he sent this grievance to
the grievance officer and then to Springfield for the ARB to
also relies on a grievance dated May 29,
2016 (Doc. 58-3 at 3-4) to establish exhaustion of
his administrative remedies. In this grievance, Plaintiff
complains that he was issued a disciplinary report for health
and safety violations arising from an issue on the yard.
Plaintiff explains that there are no toilets on the yard and
forcing him to forgo using the restroom for one hour is
unconstitutional as he suffers from stomach issues. There is
no response from Plaintiff's counselor, grievance
officer, warden, or ARB to this grievance.
submitted a “Resident Request” on June 13, 2016
asking for a response to his May 13, 2016 grievance (Doc.
58-3 at 5). Plaintiff also submitted a “Resident
Request” on June 29, 2016 asking for a response to his
May 29, 2016 grievance (Id.).
to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008),
the Court held a hearing on the issue of exhaustion on May
16, 2018. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that after he
received his counselor's response to his May 13, 2016
grievance, he immediately submitted the grievance to the
grievance officer. Plaintiff testified that he waited 60 days
for the grievance officer's response and, after no
response was received, he sent the grievance to the ARB.
Plaintiff never received a response from the ARB. With regard
to his May 29, 2016 grievance, Plaintiff testified that he
never received a response from his counselor, so he sent a
copy of the grievance to the grievance officer after he had
waited 60 days. When he did not receive a response from the
grievance officer, he submitted a copy of the grievance to
the ARB, but again, he never received a response.
Allard, a grievance officer at Shawnee, also testified at the
hearing. He explained that he searched the grievance office
log at Shawnee and found no grievances submitted by Plaintiff
in 2016. He explained that when a grievance is received by
the grievance officer it is given a number. After a grievance
is processed, it is then entered into the log, which
maintains information on who submitted the grievance, the
grievance number, when it was completed, the outcome, and the
date of the warden's signature.