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.

Harriss v. Baldwin

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

July 2, 2019

QUAVOTIS HARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN BALDWIN, ANGELA CRAIN, JOHN TROST, and JONATHAN HOFFMAN, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Dr. John Trost (Docs. 49 and 50) and the Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants John Baldwin, Angela Crain, and Jonathan Hoffman (Docs. 57 and 58). On June 25, 2019, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motions pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants both motions.

         Background

         Harris, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this pro se lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Harris's right leg has been amputated above his knee, and his left leg has a rod from hip to knee (Doc. 1). Harris alleges that the showers at Menard Correctional Center, where he is currently housed, are not handicap accessible, and no one has responded to his complaints (Id.). Harris alleges that, in June 2017, he fell in the showers and injured his head and back due to the lack of non-slip mats, grab bars, and assistive devices (Id.). Harris also alleges that the cells are not handicap accessible and that he has not been provided with an assistive device, such as a cane or a crutch (Id.). Harris asks the Court to “stop this treatment and bring up to date the ADA accessibility of the facility” (Id. at p. 12).

         Harris proceeds on the following three counts:

Count 1- Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against John Trost and Angela Crain for refusing to ensure that he had adequate medical devices and/or pain medication;
Count 2- Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and/or the Rehabilitation Act claim against John Baldwin, in his official capacity as Director of the IDOC, for not providing Harris with accommodations permitting him to shower on the same basis as other inmates; and
Count 3- First Amendment retaliation claim against Jonathan Hoffman for refusing to allow Harris to shower on July 29, 2016, in retaliation for Harris filing grievances and/or complaints.

(Doc. 6).

         On February 11, 2019, Defendant Trost moved for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Docs. 49 and 50). On February 25, 2019, Defendants Baldwin, Crain and Hoffman moved for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Docs. 57 and 58). Harris has responded to both motions (Docs. 64 and 68).

         Eight grievances in the record are relevant to this case. On May 2019, Harris filed an emergency grievance complaining that he had not been given his pain medication (Doc. 50-2, p. 32-33). He indicated that he spoke with the doctor on May 19, 2016 about his medication and the doctor stated that he would be receiving it (Id.). He also mentioned that he had to wait two weeks to get his shower chair (Id.). Harris submitted this grievance directly to the warden (Id.). On June 6, 2016, the warden found the grievance to be an emergency (Id.). The grievance was received by a grievance officer and reviewed on June 7, 2016 (Doc. 50-2, p. 31). The grievance officer found the grievance to be moot, indicating that certain medication was approved and given to him on June 3, 2016, thus “offender is receiving medical treatment as determined by medical professionals.” (Id.). On June 13, 2016, the warden concurred with the finding of the grievance officer that Harris's grievance was moot (Id.). Harris signed the grievance form indicating his intent to appeal the warden's decision on June 27, 2016 (Id.). However, his grievance was not received by the ARB until July 29, 2016 (Doc. 50-2, p. 30-31).

         On June 27, 2016, Harris wrote two emergency grievances asking for “better health care/showers as prescribed” and complaining that he was not receiving his medication (Doc. 64, p. 14-18). These grievances were submitted directly to the warden, and, on June 29, 2016, the warden found that both grievances were not emergencies, and directed Harris to submit the grievances in the normal manner (Doc. 34, p. 14 and 16).

         On July 9, 2016, Harris wrote another grievance complaining about the grievance officer who reviewed his May 29, 2016 grievance, arguing that he failed to acknowledge that Harris went a whole two weeks without medication, so his grievance was not moot (Doc. 50-2, p. 34). Harris sent this grievance directly to the ARB, who received it on July 26, 2016 (Id.).

         On July 29, 2016, Harris wrote another grievance complaining that Defendant Hoffman refused to allow him to shower that day (Doc. 1-1, p. 7-8). This grievance does not contain any signatures from Menard counselors or other staff members, indicating Harris submitted it directly to the ARB, who received it on February 27, 2017 (Id.). Along with the grievance, Harris attached an undated letter asking about the status of this grievance (Doc. 1-1, p. 9). Harris also attached a response to that letter where Correctional Counselor R. Rowold stated ...


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.