Dawson v. Martin

CHRISTOPHER DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH MARTIN and DEREK CLELAND, Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-01172-GCS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

May 3, 2021

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

SISON, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiff Christopher Dawson, an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, alleges that Defendant Joseph Martin violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights through a consistent pattern of harassment, while Defendant Derek Cleland violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights by using excessive force against him. (Doc. 1). On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff brought this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. Now pending before the Court is a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Martin and Cleland, in which they argue that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the commencement of this suit. (Doc. 23, p. 1). Plaintiff responded on November 25, 2020 (Doc. 32), and the Court held a hearing on the motion on January 11, 2021. Following the hearing, Defendants supplemented the record on January 13, 2021. (Doc. 36). For the reasons outlined below, Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initially outlined an extensive pattern of harassment and retaliation by various defendants in his complaint. (Doc. 1). However, as pertains to the present case, only two counts survived preliminary review.¹ (Doc. 10, p. 4). In his first count, Plaintiff alleges that on September 5, 2019, Defendant Martin harassed Plaintiff by placing a blanket over his cell window, shutting off water to his cell, showing him a note with the name of his deceased mother, and telling the nurses not to check up on him. (Doc. 10, p. 2). Though this count describes Defendant Martin's actions specifically, Plaintiff asserts that other officers engaged in a similar pattern of harassment against him prior to September 5, 2019. See (Doc. 10, p. 2). In his second count, Plaintiff claims that on September 10, 2019, Defendant Cleland escorted Plaintiff from his cell to another room, where Defendant Cleland began beating Plaintiff while other officers watched. (Doc. 10, p. 3).

On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed emergency grievance number 2795-09-19 ("grievance 2795"), which complained of harassment by Internal Corrections Officer Bennet and "others." (Doc. 36, Exh. 1). The grievance counselor denied the grievance on September 3, 2019, and there is no evidence that Plaintiff appealed the grievance counselor's decision to the Administrative Review Board ("ARB"). (Doc. 36, Exh. 1).

Plaintiff also filed an emergency grievance 2784-90-19 ("grievance 2784"), which was potentially relevant to his complaint. (Doc. 36, Exh. 2). Pinckneyville Correctional Center does not have a record of grievance 2784. (Doc. 36, Exh. 2). However, Pinckneyville Correctional Center does note that the warden denied Plaintiff's grievance as a non-emergency. (Doc. 36, Exh. 2). There is no evidence that Plaintiff re-filled his grievance using the regular grievance procedure. (Doc. 36, Exh. 2). On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff brought suit against both Defendants. (Doc. 1).

Defendants first filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion of remedies on September 21, 2020. (Doc. 23). During the hearing on the motion, the Court inquired into two potentially relevant grievances, neither of which Defendants had supplied in their motion: grievance 2795 and grievance 2784. The Court granted Defendants leave to supplement the record with these grievances. On January 13, 2021, Defendants filed a notice containing a copy of grievance 2795. (Doc. 36, Exh. 1). However, a search of Pinckneyville Correctional Center's records did not return a copy of grievance 2784. (Doc. 36, Exh. 2). Instead, Defendants submitted a declaration from grievance counselor Catherine Hale, explaining that Pinckneyville Correctional Center did not have a copy of the grievance because, after the grievance was deemed a non-emergency, Plaintiff did not refile the grievance through the normal channels. (Doc. 36, Exh. 2).

LEGAL STANDARDS

Summary judgment is proper when a moving party demonstrates that the record cannot establish the presence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See FED. R. CIV. PROC. 56(a). In order to survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must provide admissible evidence which a reasonable jury or court could find creates a dispute of genuine material fact. See Maclin v. SBC Ameritech, 520 F.3d 781, 786 (7th Cir. 2008). Traditionally, the Court's role in determining a motion for summary judgment is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence, judge witness credibility, or determine the truth of the matter, but is instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact. See Nat'l Athletic Sportwear Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2008). However, in Pavey v. Conley, the Seventh Circuit held that a judge, rather than a jury, should determine whether factual issues relating to the defense of the failure to exhaust administrative remedies exist. 544 F.3d 739, 741 (7th Cir. 2008). If the Court determines that a prisoner did not exhaust his administrative remedies, the Court will outline one of three potential outcomes: (a) if the plaintiff still has time to do so, the plaintiff must go back and exhaust his administrative remedies; (b) if the plaintiff's failure to exhaust was innocent, as where prison officials prevent a prisoner from exhausting his remedies, the plaintiff must be given another chance to exhaust; or (c) if the failure to exhaust was the prisoner's fault, the case is over. Id. at 742.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") governs lawsuits filed by inmates and states that "no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under § 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or othercorrectional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted."42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). In order to satisfy the PLRA's exhaustion requirement, prisoners must strictly adhere to the grievance process. See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). Prisoners must exhaust their remedies before filing a suit. See Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff cannot file a suit and then exhaust administrative remedies while that suit is pending. Id. Consequently, if a prisoner fails to use a prison's grievance process properly, "the prison administrative authority can refuse to hear the case, and the prisoner's claim can be indefinitely unexhausted." Dole, 438 F.3d at 809.

Prisoners must follow a prison's administrative rules when exhausting their remedies. See Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1023 (7th Cir. 2002). As an inmate confined within the IDOC, Plaintiff is required to follow the regulations contained in the IDOC's Grievance Procedures for Offenders ("grievance procedures") in order to properly exhaust his claims. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE. § 504.800, et seq. The grievance procedures require prisoners to submit a grievance to a counselor within sixty days of discovering the underlying incident. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.800. These grievances must state the "factual details regarding each aspect of the offender's complaint including what happened, when, the name of any individual involved, and where the incident occurred." 20 ILL. ADMIN CODE § 504.810(a). If a prisoner is not satisfied with the counselor's response to the grievance, then that prisoner can submit a formal grievance to the prison's grievance officer. Id. at (a)-(b). The officer must then review the grievance and provide a written response to the inmate. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.830(a). Within two months of receipt of the grievance, when reasonablyfeasible under the circumstances, the grievance officer must report findings and recommendations in writing to the Chief Administrative Officer ("CAO"). See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504. 830(e). If the prisoner is still not satisfied with the CAO's decision, they can formally appeal to the Director through the ARB within thirty days of the CAO's decision. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(a). The inmate must attach copies of the grievance officer's report and the CAO's decision to their appeal. Id. The ARB then submits its recommendation to the Director who is responsible for issuing the IDOC's final decision. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.850(f).

The grievance process also allows for an inmate to file an emergency grievance directly to the CAO. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.840(a). The CAO may determine if there is a substantial risk of imminent personal injury or other serious harm to the offender. Id. If the CAO determines that the grievance is a non-emergency, the prisoner is notified in writing that they may resubmit the grievance as a non-emergency and move forward with the standard grievance process. See 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE. § 504.840(c).

The statutory purpose of the PLRA is to "afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006); see also Begolli v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 701 F.3d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 2012). This allows the prison administration an opportunity to fix the problem or to reduce damages and to shed light on factual disputes that may arise in litigation. See Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1023-24. To allow otherwise would frustrate the purpose of the grievance process. See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 526 (2002). Accordingly, a prisoner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by filing an untimelyor otherwise procedurally defective grievance. See Woodford, 548 U.S. at 83. Unless a prisoner completes the administrative review process by following the rules established for that process, exhaustion has not occurred. See Poz...