United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL Chief U.S. District Judge.
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
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).
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;
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.
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).
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).
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
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.).
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 ...