United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
JOHN D. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff,
C/O MAUE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
M. Yandle United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
("Report") of United States Magistrate Judge Reona
J. Daly (Doc. 38), recommending that the Court grant
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21).
Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc. 39). For the
following reasons, Judge Daly's Report is
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 that his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Menard Correctional Center ("Menard").
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges Defendant directed another
inmate to fight Plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleges that
after the other inmate retreated, Defendant placed him in a
chokehold and shoved his face into the floor. Defendant moves
for summary judgment, asserting Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit and
that this lawsuit is barred by the two-year statute of
required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.
2008), Judge Daly held an evidentiary hearing on
Defendant's motion. Following the Pavey hearing,
Judge Daly issued the Report currently before the Court. The
Report accurately states the nature of the evidence presented
by both sides on the issue of exhaustion, the applicable law,
and the requirements of the administrative process. Judge
Daly examined Plaintiffs emergency grievance dated May 19,
2014 and determined that Plaintiff failed to timely submit
his grievance to the Administrative Review Board after the
grievance was denied by the Grievance Officer and Chief
Administrative Officer ("CAO"). Judge Daly further
found Plaintiffs testimony during the Pavey hearing
to be disingenuous and not credible. Accordingly, Judge Daly
concluded that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies prior to filing this lawsuit. Additionally, Judge
Daly concluded that Plaintiffs Complaint, filed in January
2018, was outside of the two-year statute of limitations.
timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a
de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); SDIL-LR
73.1(b); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298,
301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge's recommended decision. Id.
In making this determination, the Court must look at all of
the evidence contained in the record and give fresh
consideration to those issues to which specific objections
have been made. Id., quoting 12 Charles Alan Wright
et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 3076.8, at p.
55 (1st Ed. 1973) (1992 Pocket Part).
Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust
all available administrative remedies before filing suit. 42
U.S.C. § l997e(a). Proper exhaustion requires that an
inmate file complaints and appeals in the place, at the time,
and in the manner the prison's administrative rules
require. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025
(7th Cir. 2002). The Illinois Administrative Code (the
"Code") governs the grievance and appeals process
available to prisoners. A prisoner may file a grievance in
the normal course which includes: (1) submitting a grievance
to a grievance officer; (2) the grievance officer's
findings and recommendations are reviewed by the CAO; (3) the
CAO renders a decision; (4) the CAO's decision may then
be appealed to the ARB in writing within 30 days. 20 ILCS
§§ 504.830, 504.850(a).
prisoner may file suit after he has exhausted his
administrative remedies. Under Illinois law, am action for
personal injury must be commenced within two years after the
cause of action accrued. 735 ILCS 5/13-202; see Ashafa v.
City of Chicago, 146 F.3d 459, 461 (7th Cir. 1998). The
statute of limitations is tolled, however, while a prisoner
completes the administrative grievance process. See
42 U.S.C. § l997(e)(a); Johnson v. Rivera, 272
F.3d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 2001).
does not deny that he failed to timely appeal the CAO's
decision to the ARB. Rather, he generally objects to the
entire grievance procedure as written. Plaintiff may not
agree with the grievance procedure, but he must follow it. It
is clear that Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. It is also
apparent that Plaintiffs lawsuit is barred by the two-years
statute of limitations - a finding that Plaintiff does not
address in his objections.
Court finds no clear error in Judge Daly's findings,
analysis and conclusions, and adopts her Report and
Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, Defendant's
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) is
GRANTED. This case is barred by the statute
of limitations and is therefore DISMISSED with
prejudice. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly.