Slayton v. Emery et al
Filing
6
OPINION entered by Judge Sue E. Myerscough on 9/1/2011. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The merit review conference scheduled for September 12, 2011, is cancelled as unnecessary. This case is CLOSED. (MAS, ilcd)
E-FILED
Friday, 02 September, 2011 01:47:51 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
TOMMY SLAYTON
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
M. EMERY et al.,
Defendants,
11-CV-3223
OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Tommy Slayton, currently incarcerated in Western Illinois
Correctional Center, proceeds pro se on allegations that he was placed in
a cell at McClean County Jail which Defendants knew had recently
housed an inmate with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus
(“MRSA”). He alleges that Defendants failed to clean the cell before
placing him there, causing him to contract MRSA on his right buttock.
He was allegedly quarantined and treated for 12 days for his MRSA
1
infection.
This case is before the Court for a merit review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to review a Complaint filed by
a prisoner against a governmental entity or officer and, through such
process, to identify cognizable claims, dismissing any claim that is
“frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted . . . ”.
The Court cannot discern which of the 18 Defendants might bear
personal responsibility for this alleged deprivation. Deliberate
indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm violates an inmate’s
constitutional rights, but deliberate indifference requires that a defendant
intentionally or recklessly disregard a known and substantial risk of
serious harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). In the
context of this case, that means that a defendant must have personally
known that Plaintiff was placed in a dangerous cell and had a “realistic
opportunity” to take action. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 593 (7th
Cir. 2009)(“Section 1983 does not establish a system of vicarious
2
responsibility.”); Miller v. Smith, 220 F.3d 491, 495 (7th
Cir.2000)(police officer could be liable for another officer’s excessive
force if he or she had a “realistic opportunity” to prevent the violation).
An amended complaint might clarify each defendant’s involvement,
but the exercise would be futile because no amended complaint could
cure Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a) states:
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.
Exhausting administrative remedies requires timely following the facility’s
procedures to their conclusion, including all opportunities for appeal.
Maddox v. Love, — F.3d —, 2011 WL 3690049 *9 (7th Cir. 2011).
“Strict compliance” with the facility’s procedures is required. Dole v.
Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). “A prisoner must properly
use the prison’s grievance process. If he or she fails to do so, the prison
administrative authority can refuse to hear the case, and the prisoner’s
3
claim can be indefinitely unexhausted.” Id. “Grievances are intended to
‘[allow prisons] to address complaints about the program it administers
before being subjected to suit, [reduce] litigation to the extent complaints
are satisfactorily resolved, and [improve] litigation that does occur by
leading to the preparation of a useful record.’” Maddox, 2011 WL
3690049 *9, quoting Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007)(brackets
added in Maddox). Whether the exhaustion requirement has been
satisfied is a question for the Court, not the jury. Pavey v. Conley, 544
F.3d 739, 741 (7th Cir. 2008).
Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense
which typically the defendants must raise. However, as with any
affirmative defense, dismissal on the pleadings is appropriate if the
defense is “so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can be
regarded as frivolous . . . ”. Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009
(7th Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff admits in his Complaint that he did not exhaust his
administrative remedies. He alleges that he failed to do so because the
4
Jail does not have a grievance process. Yet this Court knows from
experience in prior cases and also from the Jail’s website,
www.mcleancountyil.gov, that there are administrative remedies available
at the Jail. Attached to this order is the Jail’s handbook, printed from the
website. Section XII describes how inmates may file “request forms”
about any personal problems they are having, and section VIII(A)(2) sets
forth the procedure for requesting medical care. An inmate “not satisfied
with the response” to his request may appeal to the appropriate person
listed in Section XII(E). Thus, Plaintiff could have filed an inmate
request form about the incident. His allegation that no grievance
procedure existed is simply not plausible.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
This case is closed.
2.
The merit review conference scheduled for September 12, 2011, is
cancelled as unnecessary. The clerk is directed to notify the
5
plaintiff’s prison of the cancellation.
ENTERED:
September 1, 2011
FOR THE COURT:
s/Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?