United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
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. 59), recommending that Defendants’ Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies (Doc. 38) be denied. Defendant
Moldenhauer filed a timely objection (Doc. 60). For the
following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Judge
Daly’s Report and Recommendation.
Kiearre Reese, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated
at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard’).
Plaintiff alleges medical providers at Menard failed to
adequately treat his severe hemorrhoids.
filed a single grievance dated January 18, 2019, which he
marked as an emergency. In the grievance, Plaintiff stated
that in August 2016, he went to an outside hospital for
treatment of hemorrhoids. After his hospital stay, he
continued experiencing more frequent blood in his stool and
was told by “healthcare” in October 2016 that he
would be treated again at a different hospital. Plaintiff
complained that he had not been sent to an outside hospital
for treatment and indicated he was still seeing blood in his
stool. The Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”)
determined Plaintiff’s grievance constituted an
emergency on January 27, 2017, and it was expedited for
review. The Grievance Officer reviewed the grievance on
January 30, 2017 and recommended that it be found moot. The
CAO concurred with the Grievance Officer’s
recommendation on February 2, 2017. The ARB received the
grievance on March 2, 2017, and denied the same, finding it
was appropriately addressed at Plaintiff’s institution.
move for summary judgment in this case, contending Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing
suit. As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739
(7th Cir. 2008), Judge Daly held an evidentiary hearing on
Defendants’ Motion. Following the Pavey
hearing, Judge Daly issued the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court (Doc. 59). 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.
recommending denying Defendants’ Motion, Judge Daly
found, and the parties do not dispute, that Plaintiff’s
single grievance was fully exhausted on Match 3, 2017 after
the Administrative Review Board provided its response with
the IDOC Director in concurrence. Judge Daly also found that
the contents of the grievance were sufficient to exhaust
Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference against
Defendant Moldenhauer and Defendant Trost.
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, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Defendant Moldenhauer filed a timely objection to the Report
in which he reiterates his argument that Plaintiff’s
claim against him does not arise from an encounter occurring
before Plaintiff submitted the January 18, 2017 grievance. He
contends that as a result, prison officials did not have a
fair opportunity to address Plaintiff’s complaints
against him. Moldenhauer hinges his argument on a single
sentence in the Complaint in which Plaintiff asserts that he
saw Moldenhauer after Defendant Trost was terminated. Trost
was not terminated until April 2017, after the grievance in
question was submitted.
grievances must contain factual details regarding each aspect
of the inmate’s complaint, including the name of each
person who is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in
the complaint, this condition is tempered in that an offender
who does not know the name of each person who is involved in
the complaint may simply describe the individual with as much
detail as possible. ILCS § 504.810(c). The Seventh
Circuit has interpreted this as requiring the inmate
plaintiff to identify names only to the extent practicable.
See Glick v. Walker, 385 Fed.App’x 579, 582
(7th Cir. 2010).
Court finds Judge Daly’s factual findings and rationale
to be sound. Although Plaintiff did not identify Trost or
Moldenhauer specifically in the January 18, 2017 grievance,
he had been examined by both in October 2016, prior to filing
his grievance. The Court agrees with Judge Daly’s
finding that the purpose of the PLRA was met as prison
officials had a fair opportunity to address Plaintiff’s
complaints. It is apparent that Plaintiff exhausted his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Court adopts Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation in
its entirety (Doc. 59). Accordingly, the Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust his
Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Dr. John Trost
and Michael Moldenhauer (Doc. 38) is DENIED.