Jones et al v. Carter et al

Filing 75

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable John Robert Blakey on 7/14/2015. Mailed notice(gel, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Willie Jones,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13 C 7242
Judge John Robert Blakey

Wayne Carter,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This is a Section 1983 case alleging a lack of nutritional meals and denial of
adequate bed sheets at Kane County Adult Justice Center, where Plaintiff Willie
Jones was housed. Plaintiff also had alleged that commissary prices at the Center
were too high, but this Court previously dismissed that claim [11]. In his remaining
claims, Plaintiff alleges that on September 26, 2013, he filed and directed
grievances about these two issues to Defendant Lieutenant Wayne Carter, yet
Defendant failed to take “remedial action.”
Defendant now moves for summary judgment [58]. Defendant argues that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing this lawsuit
on October 8, 2013, and thus that this litigation is premature under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act. That motion is granted.
I.

Legal Standard
Summary judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law. Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc., 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir.
2014). A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if “the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

The party seeking summary

judgment has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In determining
whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, this Court must construe all facts
and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See
CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland School District, 743 F.3d 524, 528 (7th Cir. 2014).
II.

Facts 1
A.

Grievance Procedure

The exhaustion issue before this Court involves the grievance procedures at
Kane County Adult Justice Center, where Plaintiff was housed at all relevant
times. DSOF ¶ 1. Inmates at the Center received a Detainee Handbook upon
arrival which, in sections titled “Grievance Procedure” and “Procedure for Filing a
Grievance,” explain the grievance procedure inmates must follow at the Center.
DSOF ¶¶ 13-14; Detainee Handbook [59-4] at 6-7. The Detainee Handbook also is
available electronically through the computer kiosks located in each housing unit in
Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 statement of facts [60-1] is referred to as “DSOF.” Plaintiff
did not expressly respond to DSOF, so this Court deems them admitted. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e)(2). Plaintiff also has not submitted a statement of facts compliant with Local Rule
56.1 but rather submitted an “Affidavit of Facts” [67] that contained certain exhibits.
Despite this technical failure to comply with Local Rule 56.1, this Court construes the
Affidavit of Facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff to give him the benefit of the doubt
as the nonmoving party at summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Steve v. Frasor,
662 F.3d 880, 886-87 (7th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that it is within this Court's discretion to
apply Local Rule 56.1 strictly).
1

2

Kane County Adult Justice Center. DSOF ¶ 21, 23-24. Inmates log onto the kiosk
using their inmate number and personal PIN number. DSOF ¶ 22.
Inmates submit grievances and appeals electronically through the computer
kiosks at the Center. DSOF ¶¶ 25, 28. Grievances automatically are sent to the
Lieutenant in charge of inmate grievances, here, Defendant Lieutenant Wayne
Carter. DSOF ¶¶ 26, 29. When the Lieutenant responds, the inmate is able to
access the Lieutenant’s response electronically. DSOF ¶ 27.
According to the Detainee Handbook, inmates must submit a grievance
within 48 hours of an incident; however, a grievance can be submitted after that
time if the inmate shows good cause. DSOF ¶ 15. Once a grievance is filed, the
inmate will receive a response within 15 days unless circumstances require more
time. DSOF ¶ 17. The inmate then has 48 hours to appeal any grievance decision
to the Commander of Corrections. DSOF ¶¶ 18, 20. The appeal must attach the
original grievance and include a valid reason for the appeal.

DSOF ¶ 19.

No

additional appeals are permitted. DSOF ¶ 18.
B.

Plaintiff’s Exhaustion Efforts

Plaintiff was admitted at Kane County Adult Justice Center on February 6,
2013 and remained there until June 30, 2014. DSOF ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that at
unidentified times during his incarceration at the Center, the breakfast meals there
lacked proper nutrition, and that he did not receive adequate bed sheets. DSOF ¶¶
6, 8.

3

Plaintiff’s correctional records at Kane County Adult Justice Center include
13 grievances and one appeal filed before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. DSOF ¶¶ 3133. Of the 13 grievances, just two grievances filed September 26, 2013 are relevant
to the instant dispute. DSOF ¶¶ 34, 37, 40, 42. The first grievance regards the lack
of nutritional meals; the second grievance the denial of adequate bed sheets. DSOF
¶¶ 34, 37. Each one will be discussed in turn.
Breakfast meals grievance. On September 26, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., Plaintiff
submitted an electronic grievance about there not being nutritional breakfast meals
at Kane County Adult Justice Center. DSOF ¶ 34. Plaintiff wrote in full:
ATTN LT CARTER. THIS A GREIVANCE I WOULD LIKE TO
GREIVANCE THE FACT, THAT OUR BREATFEST TRAYS DOSNT
HAVE THE PROPER NUTRITIONS ON THEM. PLEASE SEND ME
A COPY OF GREIVANCE RESPOND.
DSOF ¶ 34 (misspellings in original).
The next day, on September 27, 2013 at 11:52 a.m., Defendant responded to
this grievance and asked Plaintiff for more information about his grievance. DSOF
¶ 35. Defendant wrote:
Is there a problem with all breakfast trays or are you talking about a
certain day? Give me an example of what you have received which is
lacking.
DSOF ¶ 35.
Plaintiff’s correctional records at Kane County Adult Justice Center do not
contain any response from Plaintiff to Defendant’s question, or any appeal from
Plaintiff. DSOF ¶¶ 31-33, 36, 41. The only appeal that could be relevant was filed
on July 9, 2013—months before the relevant grievances here were lodged. DSOF ¶
4

33. Nor does Plaintiff argue, such as through a sworn statement, that he did in fact
appeal his breakfast meals grievance.
Bed sheets grievance. Eight minutes after grieving the deficient breakfast
meals, on September 26, 2013 at 7:08 p.m., Plaintiff submitted a second electronic
grievance about not having received adequate bed sheets. DSOF ¶ 37. Plaintiff
wrote in full:
I AM ALSO GREIVANCE THAT YOU ALL ARE NOT GIVING US
SHEETS FOR OUR BEDS THOSE ARE COVERS FOR BEDDING
NOT SHEETS.
PLEASE SEND ME COPY OF GREIVANCE
RESPOND. THANK YOU.
DSOF ¶ 37 (misspellings in original).
On September 27, 2013 at 11:57 a.m., Defendant denied Plaintiff’s grievance.
DSOF ¶ 38. Defendant explained: “By giving you a blanket and a mattress cover we
are within acceptable guidelines.” DSOF ¶ 38.
Once again, Plaintiff’s correctional records do not contain any appeal from
Plaintiff. DSOF ¶¶ 31-33, 39, 41. Nor does Plaintiff argue that he did in fact
appeal his bed sheets grievance.
III.

Analysis
Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, an inmate may not bring a federal

suit about prison conditions unless he first has exhausted all available
administrative remedies:
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.

5

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir.
2015); Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 903 (7th Cir. 2011).

A remedy is not

exhausted if the inmate failed to abide by the prison’s procedures for pursing relief.
Pavey, 663 F.3d at 903.

The exhaustion requirement encompasses grievance

procedures that permit appeals, indeed, the Seventh Circuit has found inmates who
failed to appeal adverse grievance decisions had failed to exhaust. E.g., Burrell v.
Powers, 431 F.3d 282, 284-85 (7th Cir. 2005); Dixon v. Page, 291 F.3d 485, 489-90
(7th Cir. 2002); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (7th Cir. 2002). The
purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to keep prisoner grievances in prisons and
out of the courts, so that the primary responsibility for prison regulation remains
with prison officials. Begolli v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 701 F.3d 1158, 1161 (7th
Cir. 2012); Fletcher v. Menard Correctional Center, 623 F.3d 1171, 1174 (7th Cir.
2010).
The Seventh Circuit requires strict compliance with the Prison Litigation
Reform Act’s exhaustion requirement. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir.
2006).

Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof is on

Defendant. Dole, 438 F.3d at 809; Pavey, 663 F.3d at 903. This Court, and not a
jury, determines whether Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies.
Wagoner, 778 F.3d at 590.
Here, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act because Plaintiff’s correctional records show that he failed to

6

appeal either September 26, 2013 grievance. [59] at 9. An appeal is required to
exhaust Kane County Adult Justice Center’s grievance procedure. DSOF ¶¶ 18, 20.
As shown by the undisputed factual background, Plaintiff’s correctional
records at Kane County Adult Justice Center show by omission that Plaintiff failed
to appeal either September 26, 2013 grievance. That is enough for Defendant to
meet its burden of proof to show a failure to exhaust at summary judgment. In
these respects, this case is analogous to Burrell, 431 F.3d at 284-85, where the
Seventh Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment because the record, as
here, showed by omission that the inmate had not appealed three grievances. The
grievances in Burrell included a line that had to be signed by the inmate to appeal a
grievance decision; however, that line was left blank by the inmate. Id. at 284. Nor
did that the inmate offer any other evidence or argument that he in fact appealed
his three grievances. Id. at 284-85. Neither has Plaintiff here.
Consistent with Burrell and the undisputed facts here, other Courts in this
District grant summary judgment for a failure to exhaust when confronted with
correctional records that do not contain a relevant grievance or appeal.

E.g.,

Goldsmith v. Zolecki, No. 12-3965, 2013 WL 5699302, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2013)
(Keys, J.); Roberson v. Engelson, No. 11-9318, 2013 WL 1749384, at *2, 5 (N.D. Ill.
April 23, 2013) (Tharp, J.); Richmond v. Dart, No. 11-65, 2012 WL 6138751, at *2
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2012) (Kennelly, J.); see also Goldsmith v. Correct Care Solutions,
No. 12-3738, 2015 WL 2437332, at *3 (N.D. Ill. March 31, 2015) (Blakey, J.). The
record here is even less compelling than in Goldsmith and Richmond, where the

7

inmates claimed, unlike Plaintiff here, that they had actually filed a grievance. Nor
has Plaintiff supplied any compelling reason for this Court to believe that his
correctional records are incomplete.
Plaintiff’s responses do not get him far. Plaintiff cites multiple grievances
filed after October 8, 2013 (when this lawsuit was initiated). [67] at 4-8. Those
grievances cannot remedy Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust even though they may also
be about the lack of nutritional meals and denial of adequate bed sheets. Plaintiff
must exhaust Kane County Adult Justice Center’s grievance procedure, including
all appeals, before filing a federal lawsuit. Dixon, 291 F.3d at 489. A grievance filed
after the lawsuit by its very timing cannot satisfy the administrative prerequisites
to suit.
Plaintiff also requests that this Court issue a subpoena to Kane County Adult
Justice Center on his behalf to collect certain information about the meals the
Center served. [67] at 3-4. But that information, at best, bears on the substance of
Plaintiff’s claims and not on whether he exhausted his administrative remedies.
Nor is this Court’s role to conduct discovery on behalf of any party.
For these reasons, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
and this lawsuit is premature.

8

IV.

Conclusion
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [58] is granted.

This case is

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th
Cir. 2004). Civil case terminated.
Dated: July 14, 2015
Entered:

____________________________
John Robert Blakey
United States District Judge

9