Taylor v. Illinois Department of Corrections et al

Filing 137

ORDER DENYING 116 Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Phil Martin. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 1/25/2017. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DOUGLAS W. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,
PHIL MARTIN, and DR. JOHN COE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-CV-122-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue
of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Phil Martin on September
9, 2016 (Doc. 116).
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, Douglas Taylor, and inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
currently housed at Lawrence Correctional Center, is proceeding on his Third Amended
Complaint filed on June 17, 2016 (Doc. 102), in which he makes the following claims:
Count 3:

Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against
Wexford
Health
Sources,
Inc.,
for
maintaining
unconstitutional practices or policies with respect to staffing
the optometrist position and procedures for requesting
medical care.

Count 4:

Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against
Defendant Dr. John Coe for failing to treat Plaintiff’s eye
condition from June 7, 2012, to the present.

Page 1 of 6

Count 5:

Failure to intervene against Defendant Dr. John Coe for
failing to prevent harm related to his eye condition caused by
Dr. Hohenbary’s 1 deliberate indifference.

Count 6:

Deliberate indifference to a serious medical need against
Defendant Phil Martin for failing to treat Plaintiff’s eye
condition and/or by delaying treatment.

(Doc. 105).
In a Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson found
that Plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies as to Defendants Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., Dr. Coe, and Dr. Hohenbary (who has since been dismissed)
(Doc. 103). Specifically, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that Plaintiff had submitted
grievances on September 11, 2013, and November 7, 2013, related to the claims in this
case. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson further found that the administrative process was
rendered unavailable and that Plaintiff was deemed to have exhausted his
administrative remedies. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson did not address whether the
grievances were adequate or timely, or whether the content of the grievances sufficiently
complied with the Illinois Administrative Code, because those arguments were not
made by the moving Defendants. 2 Defendant Martin now makes those arguments to
this Court.
Both parties have adopted the factual findings of Magistrate Judge Wilkerson. As
such, there are no factual disputes that would require a hearing pursuant to Pavey v.
Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008). Defendant Martin argues that neither grievance filed
Count 1 alleged a deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Hohenbary. Dr. Hohenbary has since been
dismissed from this suit (Doc. 121).
2
This Court adopted the Report and Recommendation on July 11, 2016 (Doc. 105) after no objections were
filed.
1

Page 2 of 6

by Plaintiff provided the necessary information required by the Illinois Administrative
Code.
BACKGROUND
In the September 11 grievance (Doc. 79, pp. 39-40), Plaintiff stated that he had
been waiting more than 17 months to have his eyes checked. As a result, he was
suffering from daily migraines that intensified when he attempted to focus his eyes on
blurry objects. He noted that his doctor told him to have his eyes checked as soon as
possible, but his requests to health care for an appointment were ignored. He requested
that his eyes be checked in a timely manner and that he obtain glasses, if necessary.
Plaintiff did not name any particular person in this grievance. His counselor responded
by indicating that he was scheduled to see the optometrist that month.
The November 7 grievance likewise did not name any particular person (Id.
41-42). It stated that, notwithstanding the response to the September 11 grievance,
Plaintiff still had not been seen by the optometrist. Plaintiff requested an investigation
into the matter, to be seen by the optometrist, and money damages. In response, the
counselor indicated that his previous appointment had been cancelled due to “more
emergent eye exams or due to follow-up exams” and that his next appointment, on
November 12, 2013, was “not a guarantee.”
Again, as indicated above, neither party disagrees with the finding that the
administrative process was rendered unavailable as to these grievances and that Plaintiff
is deemed to have fully exhausted his administrative remedies.

Page 3 of 6

DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Prison Litigation Reform Act to require
“proper exhaustion” prior to filing suit. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). This
means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the
agency addresses the issues on the merits).” Id. at 90 (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286
F.3d 1022, 1024 (7th Cir. 2002)). The Illinois Administrative Code sets forth what must be
included in a grievance:
The grievance shall contain factual details regarding each aspect of the
offender’s complaint, including what happened, when, where, and the
name of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in
the complaint. This provision does not preclude an offender from filing a
grievance when the names of individuals are not known, but the offender
must include as much descriptive information about the individual as
possible.
ILL. ADMIN. CODE TIT. 20, § 504.810(b). The actual forms used by Plaintiff, however, only
ask for a “[b]rief summary of grievance.” That is, they do not instruct an inmate to set
forth the name of the person involved.
In Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011), the Seventh Circuit addressed a
similar circumstance: the defendants argued a grievance filed was insufficient because it
failed to name or describe the wrongdoers. The Seventh Circuit rejected the argument,
finding that the grievance form only asked for a brief description, the prison responded
to the grievance on the merits, and the grievance sufficiently notified the prison of the
complaint. Id. at 721-22. In particular, the Court stated that the failure to name a
defendant “was a mere technical defect that had no effect on the process and didn’t limit
the usefulness of the exhaustion requirement.” Id. at 722.
Page 4 of 6

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he wrote many letters to Defendant Martin
seeking eye care but that Defendant Martin ignored his letters. It appears undisputed
that Martin was the Health Care Unit Administrator.3 When Plaintiff indicated in his
grievances that he had sought an appointment with the Health Care Unit but did not
receive a response, it should not have taken much effort by prison authorities to find out
to whom Plaintiff had written. Moreover, Plaintiff’s failure to name a particular person
did not limit the usefulness of his grievances. 4 The responses to the grievances told
Plaintiff when he was next scheduled to see the eye doctor. As such, the failure to name
Defendant Martin did not hamper the prison’s ability to address Plaintiff’s concerns.
“Where prison officials address an inmate’s grievance on the merits without
rejecting it on procedural grounds, the grievance has served its function of alerting the
[prison authorities] and inviting corrective actions, and defendants cannot rely on the failure
to exhaust defense.” Maddox, 665 F.3d at 722 (emphasis added); Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d
580, 585 (7th Cir. 2005); see also Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir. 2004); Ford,
362 F.3d at 398 (if a prisoner’s grievance is decided “without invoking a forfeiture
doctrine, the [ARB] established that the prisoner exhausted his state remedies”). While
the grievance did not name Defendant Martin, it provided a “brief summary” of

Accordingly to Defendant Martin’s declaration, submitted in support of his motion for summary
judgment on the merits (Doc. 132), he states that he is not a medical doctor, has no control over medical
treatment, and did not schedule patients for treatment; rather, he was responsible for ensuring that
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. complied with the terms of its contract with the Illinois Department of
Corrections (Doc. 132-2).

3

While the prison itself may have had knowledge about who was responsible for scheduling patients,
Defendant Martin has not established that Plaintiff should have known who that person was. Plaintiff only
has alleged that he wrote letters directed to Defendant Martin seeking an appointment but that those
letters were ignored.

4

Page 5 of 6

Plaintiff’s grievance and alerted the prison that Plaintiff needed a medical appointment
for which he had not been scheduled. The prison took corrective action by notifying
Plaintiff that he was placed on the list to see the optometrist. The grievance accordingly
served its function.
Of course, none of the foregoing offers any opinion on the merits of Plaintiff’s
claim against Defendant Martin. That shall be addressed in the order on his motion for
summary judgment on the merits.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Phil Martin (Doc. 116) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 25, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 6 of 6