Simpson v. Thompson et al
Filing
53
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION. Entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 06/14/2017. SEE WRITTEN OPINION. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 24 is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions are denied as moot. This c ase is closed with the parties to bear their own costs. Plaintiff remains responsible for the $350.00 filing fee. Defendant John Doe is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff did not file a motion to substitute the real names of these defen dants within 60 days of the entry of the Court's Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28 , 9). Clerk is directed to terminate Defendant John Does. If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). (DM, ilcd)
E-FILED
Wednesday, 14 June, 2017 04:39:31 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
URBANA DIVISION
DAVID L. SIMPSON,
v.
THOMPSON, et al.
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
Defendants. )
16-2142
SUMMARY JUDGMENT OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and presently incarcerated at
Marion Penitentiary brought the present lawsuit pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging claims for deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need and failure-to-protect from harm that arose while he
was detained at Macon County Jail. The matter comes before this
Court for ruling on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
on the Issue of Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. (Doc.
24). The motion is granted.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
Page 1 of 6
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). All facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in
his favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010).
The party moving for summary judgment must show the lack of a
genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). In order to be a “genuine” issue, there must be
more than “some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.”
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
586 (1986). “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome
of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry
of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986).
FACTS1
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on May 25, 2016. In its Merit Review
Opinion, the Court found that Plaintiff stated constitutional claims
Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
despite being warned of the consequences for failure to do so. See (Doc. 30)
(Rule 56 Notice sent to Plaintiff). Plaintiff was also granted additional time to
file a response. See (Doc. 51). In total, Plaintiff had more than eight (8)
months to file a response, but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the Court will
consider Defendants’ asserted facts as undisputed for purposes of this ruling.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).
1
Page 2 of 6
for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need and failure to
protect from harm. (Doc. 9). The latter claim stems from an
altercation Plaintiff had with another inmate on January 18, 2016.
The medical claim presumably stems from treatment Plaintiff
received from his arrival at the jail until the time he filed this
lawsuit. Plaintiff arrived at Macon County Jail (“Jail”) on December
8, 2015.
To address issues that may arise, the Jail requires inmates to
file a written request form. The forms provided are one-page with
checkboxes for the inmate to indicate the nature of the grievance
and a blank section for the inmate to elaborate on his request. The
form also includes a section for the jail’s response. Inmates must
deliver the forms to a staff member who will either resolve the issue
informally, if possible, or forward the grievance to its intended
recipient.
Plaintiff filed numerous inmate request forms while detained
at Macon County Jail. (Doc. 26-5). None of the inmate request
forms filed discuss the issues Plaintiff asserts in this lawsuit.
Page 3 of 6
ANALYSIS
Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense, and therefore the
burden of proof lies with the defendants. Turley v. Rednour, 729
F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013). The Court must hold an evidentiary
hearing if a disputed issue of material fact exists, see Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008), but where none is
present, an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and the issue of
exhaustion may be decided as a matter of law. Doss v. Gilkey, 649
F. Supp. 2d 905, 912 (S.D. Ill. 2009).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides:
No action shall be brought with respect to prison
conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or
other correctional facility until such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2013). The purpose of this requirement is to
“alert the state to the problem and invite corrective action.” Turley,
729 F.3d at 649 (internal citations omitted). The Seventh Circuit
has adopted a strict compliance standard to exhaustion, and to
exhaust remedies “a prisoner must properly use the prison’s
grievance process.” Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir.
2006). In other words, “a prisoner must file complaints and appeals
Page 4 of 6
in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules
require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002).
If the prisoner fails to follow the grievance procedures, “the prison
administrative authority can refuse to hear the case, and the
prisoner's claim can be indefinitely unexhausted.” Id.; see Dole,
438 F.3d at 809 (quoting same). “The ‘applicable procedural rules’
that a prisoner must properly exhaust are defined not by the PLRA,
but by the prison grievance process itself.” Maddox v. Love, 655
F.3d 709, 721 (7th Cir. 2011) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199,
218 (2007)).
Plaintiff did not file any inmate request forms with the Jail
prior to initiating this lawsuit. The Court finds that Plaintiff failed
to exhaust administrative remedies, and, therefore, this case must
be dismissed. Ross v. Blake, 136 U.S. 1850, 1856-57 (2016) (“[A]
court may not excuse a failure to exhaust, even to take special
circumstances into account.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [24] is
GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice. All
pending motions are denied as moot. This case is closed
with the parties to bear their own costs. Plaintiff remains
responsible for the $350.00 filing fee.
Page 5 of 6
2) Defendant John Doe is dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff did not file a motion to substitute the real names
of these defendants within 60 days of the entry of the
Court’s Scheduling Order. (Doc. 28, ¶ 9). Clerk is
directed to terminate Defendant John Does.
3) If Plaintiff wishes to appeal this judgment, he must file a
notice of appeal with this Court within 30 days of the
entry of judgment. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4). A motion for
leave to appeal in forma pauperis MUST identify the issues
the Plaintiff will present on appeal to assist the court in
determining whether the appeal is taken in good faith. See
FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(1)(c); see also Celske v Edwards, 164
F.3d 396, 398 (7th Cir. 1999)(an appellant should be given
an opportunity to submit a statement of his grounds for
appealing so that the district judge “can make a
reasonable assessment of the issue of good faith.”); Walker
v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000)(providing that
a good faith appeal is an appeal that “a reasonable person
could suppose…has some merit” from a legal perspective).
If Plaintiff does choose to appeal, he will be liable for the
$505.00 appellate filing fee regardless of the outcome of
the appeal.
ENTERED:
June 14, 2017.
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 6 of 6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?