United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
STEVEN D. LISLE, Plaintiff,
LISA GOLDMAN, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, ANA SCHOTT, and CASSANDRA CHITTY, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Steven D. Lisle is an inmate in the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”) who brings this action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Lisle filed the complaint in this case in
September 2018 (Doc. 1). He alleges he was placed on suicide
watch while incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center
(“Menard”) in February and August 2018, and
Defendants failed to remove unsafe objects from his cell,
which he used to cut himself and then swallowed
(Id.). Lisle alleges he was taken to the healthcare
unit, but Defendants ordered him to return to his cell before
he received medical care (Id.).
November 2018, Lisle filed another case in this district
court, making similar allegations. SDIL No.
18-cv-2052. There, Lisle states he was placed on suicide
watch at Menard in October 2018, and Defendants failed to
remove a metal object from his cell, which he used to injure
himself. SDIL No. 18-cv-2052, Doc. 7). Defendant
Cassandra Chitty allegedly watched Lisle cut himself but did
nothing to stop him, and then refused to obtain medical care
for him afterwards (Id.). Lisle alleges Defendant
Jacqueline Lashbrook destroyed camera footage of the cell,
even though he provided her with notice of the suicide
attempt and requested that she preserve the footage
cases were consolidated in November 2018 (Doc. 28), and
SDIL No. 18-cv-1736 was designated as the lead case
(Id.). Lisle currently proceeds on the following
Count 1: Goldman, Lashbrook, and Schott
violated Lisle's Eighth Amendment rights in February and
August 2018 by placing him in a crisis cell with unsafe
Count 2:Goldman, Lashbrook, and Schott
violated Lisle's Eighth Amendment rights by ordering him
to return to his cell without medical treatment for injuries
he sustained during suicide attempts in February and August
Count 6:Lashbrook and Goldman violated
Lisle's Eighth Amendment rights in October 2018 by
placing him in a crisis cell with unsafe conditions;
Count 7:Chitty and Lashbrook were
deliberately indifferent to Lisle's suicide attempt in
October 2018, in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and
Count 8:Lashbrook violated Illinois state
law by destroying the camera footage of the incident.
April 2, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary, arguing
Lisle failed to exhaust his administrative remedies (Doc.
70). According to Defendants, Lisle's discovery
disclosures state he wrote two relevant grievances on August
22 and 23, 2018, and submitted two emergency grievances to
Lashbrook (Id.). There are no copies of these
grievances in the record, and the grievance counselor's
records only show Lisle filed one emergency grievance, which
was returned as a non-emergency (Id.). Lisle does
not make any allegations that he filed a grievance with the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”), and the
ARB's records do not contain any written grievances
regarding Lisle's placement on crisis watch during the
relevant period (Id.). Lisle opposes the motion and
argues he was unable to comply with the grievance process
because Lashbrook refused to process his grievances (Doc.
hearing was held on July 18, 2019, pursuant to Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (Doc. 91).
Defendants called Kelly Pierce as a witness; she testified
via videoconferencing (Id.). Pierce is a grievance
counselor at Menard, and she explained that inmates have
access to lockboxes in their respective living units, in
which they can submit grievances. The facility collects the
grievances from the lockboxes on a daily basis, and documents
who collects the grievances. The grievances are taken to the
counselors, who assign each grievance a number and keep a log
of all of an inmates' submissions. Pierce reviewed
Lisle's grievance log, which indicates Lisle submitted an
emergency grievance on October 25, 2018 (Def. Ex. C). Menard
returned the grievance to Lisle on October 26, 2018, because
the facility determined it was a non-emergency
(Id.). The log does not reflect that Lisle filed any
grievances in August 2018 (Id.).
also testified at the hearing via videoconferencing. He said
he filed four grievances in August 2018 and never received a
response. Lisle followed up with his grievance counselor to
inquire about the status of his grievances, and the counselor
told him the office did not receive any of them. Lisle's
counseling summary confirms that Lisle contacted his
counselor on September 5, 2018, to ask about a grievance
(Doc. 78, Ex. 1).
judgment is proper only where the moving party can
demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact exists 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); Ruffin-Thompkins v. Experian
Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir.
2005). All facts and reasonable inferences must be construed
in favor of the non-moving party. Blow v. Bijora,
Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing