United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JOHN D. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff,
C/O MAUE, Defendant.
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 Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 21).
John Haywood, 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 Menard Correctional Center. Plaintiff alleges that in May
2014, Defendant Maue directed another inmate to fight
Plaintiff. After the other inmate quickly retreated, Maue
placed Plaintiff in a chokehold and subsequently shoved
Plaintiff's face into the floor. A lieutenant ordered
Maue to stop. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action on an
Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Maue related
to the May 2014 incident.
Maue filed a motion for summary judgment arguing Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
this action (Doc. 21). Defendant contends, and Plaintiff does
not dispute, that there is only one grievance related to the
claim in this matter (Doc. 22-1 at 1-5). In this grievance,
Plaintiff describes Maue's alleged assault and asks that
Maue be fired for attempted murder. This grievance, dated May
19, 2014, was submitted to the Chief Administrative Officer
as an emergency. The CAO determined an emergency was not
substantiated on July 2, 2014, and Plaintiff was directed to
submit the grievance in the normal manner. Despite the
CAO's non-emergency determination, the grievance was
received by the Grievance Office on July 2, 2014. The
Grievance Officer denied the grievance on September 2, 2014
and the CAO concurred with the denial on September 8, 2014.
Plaintiff dated his appeal to the director as September 11,
2014, but it was not received by the Administrative Review
Board (“ARB”) until October 23,
2014. Because the ARB's receipt of this
grievance occurred more than 30 days after it was signed by
the CAO, it was not reviewed and the ARB returned the
grievance to Plaintiff on November 5, 2014.
contends that Plaintiff's May 19, 2014 was not exhausted
as Plaintiff never received a determination on the merits
from the ARB. Plaintiff asserts that the Court should
determine he exhausted this grievance because he did not
receive the CAO's signed response until October 17, 2014.
Plaintiff asserts he mailed the grievance to the ARB on
October 20, 2014 because October 17, 2014 was a Friday.
Plaintiff posits that the delay in receipt of the grievance
was likely due to his many cell transfers during the relevant
also argues that this action should be dismissed because it
was filed beyond the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's
grievance process lasted, at most, until November 5, 2014
when the ARB provided no further redress on his grievance.
Because Plaintiff did not file suit until January 4, 2018,
Defendant argues this lawsuit is barred.
argues that although the ARB made its decision November 5,
2014, he did not receive it until January 11, 2016. Plaintiff
attributes the delay to flooding and cell transfers.
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant's statute of
limitations argument must fail because he was not aware that
he fractured his elbow during the assault at issue until he
received his medical records in January 2016.
to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008),
the Court held a hearing on the issue of exhaustion on June
18, 2019. At the hearing, Plaintiff testified that he was
placed in segregation after the May 2014 incident with
Defendant Maue. During his second week in segregation, he
claims he wrote an emergency grievance. Plaintiff testified
he never received a response to his grievance and, when
Warden Butler came through segregation, he asked if she had
received it. Warden Butler indicated she had not received the
emergency grievance, and Plaintiff gave her a copy of the
same. Plaintiff received a response to his hand-delivered
grievance in late June 2014 wherein the Warden found that his
grievance was not an emergency. Plaintiff testified he then
submitted his grievance to the counselor and, after receiving
the counselor's response, he sent it to the Grievance
Officer. The counselor's response to Plaintiff's
grievance is not in the record. Plaintiff testified he had
copies of the counselor's response and would submit it to
the Court for review.
also testified he met with two internal affairs officers
around September 2014 in the showers in his gallery.
Plaintiff testified that the IA officers had the Grievance
Officer's response denying his grievance. Plaintiff was
told to sign the Grievance Officer's report and other
paperwork. The Officers maintained possession of his
grievance. Plaintiff was told he was going to be transferred
to a different institution. In October 2014, Plaintiff
testified he wrote to Warden Lashbrook inquiring as to the
whereabouts of his grievance. On October 2, 2014, Lashbrook
responded to his letter, indicating that grievances involving
discipline at Menard or issues that have not been resolved by
your counselor shall be forwarded to the grievance officer
(see Doc. 25 at 8). Plaintiff testified he received
the CAO and Grievance Officer's response to his May 2014
grievance on October 17, 2014. The ARB received this
grievance on October 23, 2014.
regard to the ARB's response to the May 2014 grievance,
Plaintiff testified he never received said response while he
was at Menard. Plaintiff testified he received the ARB
response sometime after he was transferred to Lawrence in
March 2016. Plaintiff testified he wrote letters to the ARB
concerning the status of its response and that he had copies
of the same. Plaintiff was directed to provide the Court with
copies of the letters.
21, 2019, Plaintiff submitted additional documentation to the
Court (see Doc. 36). The additional documentation
includes: (1) a letter signed by Haywood addressed to
“whom it may concern” inquiring about grievances
dated May 19, 2014 and May 22, 2014; (2) envelopes directed
to Plaintiff at Menard postmarked February 1, 2017, June 7,
2017, December 19, 2016, and December 6, 2016; (3) an
emergency grievance dated September 13, 2014, complaining
about an interaction with Sgt. Tisdale and referencing the
conversation Plaintiff testified took place in the showers
with internal affairs officers; (4) an emergency grievance
dated July 4, 2014, wherein Plaintiff complained about issues
with his wheelchair and asked to be transferred to an ADA
facility; (5) a grievance dated August 4, 2014, where
Plaintiff asks for copies of a May 22, 2014 grievance; (6) a
May 19, 2014 grievance (different from the May 19, 2014 that
was in the record and discussed above), wherein Plaintiff
contends he is missing property after being taken to
segregation; (7) an illegible grievance that was responded to
by Plaintiff's counselor on July 21, 2014; and (8) the
final adjustment committee report finding Plaintiff guilty of
Offense 102 “Assaulting Any Person - Staff.”