United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty (Doc. 82),
which recommends that the Motion for Summary Judgment on the
Issue of Exhaustion (Doc. 46) filed by Defendants Dwayne
Burrows and Terry Beegle be granted. The Report and
Recommendation was entered on June 3, 2019. Plaintiff
Theodore Beasley filed a timely objection (Doc. 84). For the
reasons explained below, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendation and grants the motion for summary judgment.
filed this pro se civil rights lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 on June 4, 2018. (Doc. 1). Beasley asserts
that he was attacked by his cellmate and three officers on
February 4, 2018, while he was incarcerated at Shawnee
Correctional Center (“Shawnee”) (Doc. 1). With
regard to Defendants Beegle and Burrows, Beasley claims two
violations of his Eighth Amendment rights occurred. (Docs. 1,
7). The first violation alleged is against Defendant Beegle
for failing to intervene and protect Beasley from being
attacked a second time. (Id.). The second alleged
violation is against both Defendants Beegle and Burrows for
being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs after he
was assaulted. (Id.).
November 2018, Defendants Beegle and Burrows filed a motion
for summary judgment arguing Beasley failed to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this suit.
(Doc. 46). Defendants assert there are only two grievances in
the record that mention Beegle and Burrows. Both of these
grievances were dated March 18, 2018, and were sent directly
to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”)
without any institutional responses. Defendants also dispute
the credibility of a statement Beasley attached to his
Complaint claiming he received no responses to emergency
grievances he submitted on February 15, 2018, and March 18,
2018. Defendants argue this statement is not credible as it
was written on May 3, 2018, at the same time he mailed his
grievances directly to the ARB. Finally, Beasley's
cumulative counseling summary shows that he did submit one
grievance during his term in segregation on an unrelated
matter. Thus, there is evidence Beasley was able to grieve
issues during his time in segregation.
responded by arguing that he filed two emergency grievances
on February 15, 2018, regarding Defendants Beegle and
Burrows, but he never received a response. (Doc. 51). Beasley
stated that, because he was housed in segregation, he did not
have access to housing unit mailboxes for the deposit of his
emergency grievances addressed to the Chief Administrative
Officer (“CAO”)-the warden. Instead, he placed
them in his cell door for pickup by officers per
Shawnee's standard procedure at that time. (Docs. 50,
further argues that on March 18, 2018, after 30 days of not
receiving a response from the CAO, he re-wrote the same
emergency grievances and made handwritten copies of them. He
then stuck the grievances in his cell door. (Doc. 51; Doc. 81
at p. 17). Beasley maintains that he never received a
response to these grievances either.
also asserts he requested that his counselor, Daniel Lynn,
document their communications while he was in segregation and
that he kept his counselor verbally informed that he had not
received any responses from the CAO concerning his emergency
grievances about Defendants Beegle and Burrows.
(Id.). Beasley argues that because he never received
responses to his grievances, his attempts to exhaust his
administrative remedies were thwarted by officers who must
have destroyed his emergency grievances after taking them
from his cell door. (Doc. 50, p. 2). Thus, Beasley contends,
he fully exhausted the administrative remedies available to
him at that time. (Id. at pp. 2-3).
Beatty held an evidentiary hearing regarding the Motion for
Smarmy Judgment on April 11, 2019, pursuant to Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008). (Docs. 69, 82).
Beasley appeared via videoconference. (Id.). At the
hearing, Beasley testified that he wrote two grievances dated
February 15, 2018, pertaining to the incidents at issue in
this lawsuit and sent them out, but that he does not know
what happened to them. (Doc. 81 at pp. 12-14). Beasley
testified that he made copies of these grievances- one of
which he sent along with the Complaint in this matter and the
other he sent to the Administrative Review Board (Doc. 81 at
p. 13). He admitted, however, that there were no grievances
dated February 15, 2018, attached to his Complaint or
included in the records produced by the ARB (Id.).
Daniel Lynn also testified at the Pavey hearing.
Lynn testified that he recalled seeing Beasley in segregation
in February 2018 and that Beasley told him he had been
turning grievances in but that he had not been getting
responses. (Doc. 81 at pp. 45-46). Lynn further testified
that Beasley asked him to check and see if he had received
any grievances from Beasley, at which point Lynn checked and
noted in Beasley's cumulative counseling summary that he
did not see any grievances from him. (Id. at p. 46).
According to Lynn, he told Beasley that if he handed the
grievance directly to Lynn, he would guarantee the grievance
would get turned in. (Id. at p. 32).
the hearing, Judge Beatty issued his Report and
Recommendation to this Court on June 3, 2019, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and SDIL-LR
72.1(a). (Doc. 82).
Report and Recommendation, Judge Beatty concluded that
Beasley failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to
Defendants Beegle and Burrows. (Doc. 82, p. 7). Judge Beatty
specifically noted Counselor Lynn's testimony that he
tells inmates in segregation to give him grievances directly
to ensure proper submission, and that Beasley's pertinent
counseling records show that Counselor Lynn never received
grievances from Beasley while he was housed in segregation.
(Id.). Importantly, Judge Beatty did not find
credible Beasley's testimony that he attempted to submit
emergency grievances in February and March 2018 but did not
receive responses. Furthermore, although Beasley attached the
March 18, 2018 grievances, which contained allegations
against Beegle and Burrows, to his Complaint (Doc. 1-1),
these grievances were sent directly to the ARB without the
required institutional responses (Doc. 82. pp. 8-9).
Consequently, Judge Beatty found that Beasley failed to
properly exhaust his administrative remedies before filing
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); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824
F.Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); 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. Harper, 824 F.Supp. at 788. In
making this determination, the Court must look at all the
evidence contained in the record and give fresh consideration
to those issues to which specific ...