Moore v. Jackson et al
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order written by the Honorable Lindsay C. Jenkins on 1/28/2025. Mailed notice. (jlj, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
Timothy Moore (M-39367),
Plaintiff,
No. 22 CV 3445
v.
Niccoelle E. Jackson, et al.,
Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Timothy Moore sued various Illinois Department of Corrections employees
including David Gomez, Rob Jeffreys, Scott Nodine, and Jonathon Sexton, alleging a
claim for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Because Moore was incarcerated when he filed suit, he is obligated to comply with
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) which requires prisoners to exhaust their
administrative remedies prior to suing in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that Moore did not abide by this
requirement. [Dkts. 71, 72.] The Court agrees and grants the motion.
I.
Local Rule 56.1
“On summary judgment, the Court limits its analysis of the facts to the
evidence that is presented in the parties’ Local Rule 56.1 statements.” Kirsch v.
Brightstar Corp., 78 F. Supp. 3d 676, 697 (N.D. Ill. 2015). The statements serve a
valuable purpose: they help the Court in “organizing the evidence and identifying
disputed facts.” Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Bay Area Bus. Council, Inc., 423 F.3d 627, 633
(7th Cir. 2005). “To dispute an asserted fact, a party must cite specific evidentiary
material that controverts the fact and must concisely explain how the cited material
controverts the asserted fact. Asserted facts may be deemed admitted if not
controverted with specific citations to evidentiary material.” L.R. 56.1(e)(3).
Any party, including a pro se litigant, who fails to comply with Local Rule 56.1
does so at their own peril. Wilson v. Kautex, Inc., 371 F. App’x 663, 664 (7th Cir. 2010)
(“strictly enforcing Local Rule 56.1 was well within the district court's discretion, even
though employee was pro se litigant”); Collins v. Illinois, 554 F.3d 693, 697 (7th Cir.
2009) (“even pro se litigants must follow procedural rules”); Parker v. Fern, 2024 WL
1116092, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2024) (“It is well-settled that a plaintiff’s pro se
status does not excuse him from complying with federal and local procedural rules.”).
Here, Defendants filed a Rule 56.1 statement and, as required by Rule 56.2,
served Moore with a “Notice to Pro Se Litigant Opposing Motion for Summary
Judgment.” [Dkts. 47, 68.] 1 This filing explains what a motion for summary judgment
is and what steps Moore needed to take to respond to the motion.
Notwithstanding the instructions in the Rule 56.2 notice, Moore failed to
respond to Defendants’ statement of material facts or file any objection at all to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the Court takes all its
facts from Defendants and deems them admitted to the extent they are supported by
evidence in the record. L.R. 56.1(e)(3); Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877, 880
(7th Cir. 2012).
II.
Background
Moore, currently a prisoner within the Illinois Department of Corrections,
claims that starting on August 11, 2021, while housed at Stateville Correctional
Center, he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. [Dkt. 73, ¶¶2,
4.] Defendant Gomez was the Warden; Jeffreys was the IDOC Director; and Nodine
and Sexton were both correctional officers. [Id., ¶3.]
Inmates incarcerated within IDOC may file grievances in accordance with
formal grievance procedures. [Id. at ¶5.] Upon arrival to an IDOC facility inmates are
made aware of rules concerning filing grievances through a manual and oral
presentation. [Id.] The orientation includes the process for filing grievances, while
the manual explains the grievance process from initial informal resolution to appeal
to the Administrative Review Board (ARB). [Id.]
Generally, the first attempt to resolve grievances must be done through the
inmate’s counselor. [Id., ¶6.] If such informal efforts are unsuccessful, the inmate may
submit a written, non-emergency grievance to the facility grievance officer. [Id., ¶7.]
The written grievance must be filed within 60 days of discovery of the issue giving
rise to the grievance and must contain factual detail concerning the basis for the
complaint. [Id.] Alternatively, an inmate may file an emergency grievance directly
with the prison’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO). [Id., ¶8.]
For non-emergency grievances, the next step, after a counselor reviews it, is
for the facility Grievance Officer to interview the inmate and/or appropriate
witnesses and obtain the relevant documents to determine the merits of the
grievance. [Id., ¶9.] After completing that investigation, the Grievance Officer
generates a report including their conclusions that is forwarded to the CAO. [Id.] The
CAO’s decision (or a designee’s decision) is then sent to the inmate. [Id.]
The inmate has the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Director of the
Department by submitting the Grievance Officer’s report and CAO’s decision to the
After the Court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw, the Court directed
defense counsel to re-serve Moore with its summary judgment materials, including a Local
Rule 56.2 notice to unrepresented litigants. [Dkt. 67.] Defense counsel sent the 56.2 notice to
Moore on December 9, 2024 and certified having done so on the docket. [Dkt. 68.]
1
2
ARB. [Dkt. 73, ¶10.] In the Director’s stead, the ARB reviews the grievance,
determines if a hearing is necessary, advises the inmate, and eventually submits a
written report of its findings and recommendations. [Id., ¶11.] The Director or their
designee then reviews the report and makes a final determination which is sent to
the inmate who filed the grievance. [Id.]
The ARB maintains a log of offender grievances and correspondences which
includes the dates, locations, and a brief description of all grievances filed with the
ARB. [Id., ¶12.] In addition, the ARB maintains a file on each inmate who has
submitted grievances to the ARB, including responses made. [Id.]
Moore is well aware of the grievance procedure for IDOC, having filed at least
24 grievances between April 2019 and April 2022 complaining of issues including poor
dietary conditions to mold in a housing cell. [Id., ¶19; Dkt, 73-3 at ¶16.] As relevant
here, Jon Loftus, a member of the ARB, performed a search of inmate grievances filed
by Moore between August 11, 2021 and May 2024 and found no record of any
grievance by Moore related to his conditions-of-confinement claim. [Dkt. 73, ¶¶16–
18; Dkt, 73-3 at ¶¶12-15.]
Nonetheless, Moore filed this lawsuit on July 1, 2022 premised, in relevant
part, on his conditions of confinement. 2 Defendants now move for summary judgment
arguing Moore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not
submit a grievance about the conditions of confinement prior to filing this lawsuit.
[Dkts. 71, 72.]
III.
Analysis
Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of 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 moving for summary judgment bears
the burden of proving the absence of such a dispute. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986). All facts and reasonable inferences are construed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Chaib v. Geo Grp., Inc., 819 F.3d 337, 341
(7th Cir. 2016).
The PLRA requires inmates to exhaust their administrative remedies before
initiating a federal civil rights lawsuit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (“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.”); see also Miles
v. Anton, 42 F.4th 777, 780 (7th Cir. 2022) (“[A] suit filed before the prisoner has
exhausted these remedies must be dismissed.”) (cleaned up). Accordingly, if a
The Court previously dismissed Moore’s due process claim but permitted his
conditions of confinement claim to proceed. [Dkt. 23.]
2
3
correctional facility has an internal administrative grievance system through which
an inmate can seek to correct a problem, the inmate must utilize that system before
filing a claim in federal court. See Chambers v. Sood, 956 F.3d 979, 983 (7th Cir.
2020). The burden of proof is on the defendant to demonstrate the prisoner failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies. See Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th
Cir. 2013).
The primary purpose of the grievance system is to put prison officials on notice
of an issue so that it can potentially be resolved prior to a lawsuit. Jackson v. Esser,
105 F.4th 948, 958–59 (7th Cir. 2024); see also Rodriguez v. Judkins, 2020 WL
6273480, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2020) (“When a prisoner does not name the parties
involved or describe the conduct about which he is complaining, this prevents the
prison from addressing complaints prior to suit, which is one of the benefits of
exhaustion.”). To exhaust, the inmate must avail himself of all levels of available
administrative review; that includes administrative appeals, in this case to the ARB.
Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016, 1025 (7th Cir. 2019); 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)
(prohibiting lawsuits with respect to prison conditions “until such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted”).
It is apparent that Moore was aware of the prison grievance procedures. [Dkt.
73, ¶19.] Defendants’ evidence shows that Moore availed himself of the
administrative procedures for numerous grievances, including during 2021, the time
frame relevant to the facts alleged here. [Id., ¶¶15–19.] There is no record of Moore
filing or appealing a grievance related to his conditions-of-confinement claim. [Id.,
¶16.] For his part, Moore has failed to respond by presenting any contrary evidence—
that is, evidence disputing the availability of the grievance procedure or evidence
that, contrary to the Defendants’ representation, could show that he engaged with
the IDOC’s grievance procedures for this claim.
The upshot is that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment. Kaba v.
Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006). Administrative exhaustion is required under
the PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and Defendants satisfied their burden of proof,
putting forth credible evidence that Moore failed to do so. On the facts presented, no
reasonable jury could conclude otherwise.
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment and dismisses the case without prejudice for failure to exhaust.
Enter: 22 CV 2445
Date: January 28, 2025
__________________________________________
Lindsay C. Jenkins
United States District Judge
4
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?