O'Quinn v. Chapman

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc. 52 ) and Defendant Chapman's Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 34 ) is GRANTED. This matter is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to entered judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 6/30/2015. (jdh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHESTER O'QUINN, K92939,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHAPMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-cv-00407-JPG-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc.
52) of Magistrate Judge Philip M. Frazier with regard to Defendant Chapman's Motion for
Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Doc. 34). Plaintiff filed a
timely Objection (Doc. 53).
The Court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations of the magistrate judge in a report and recommendation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). The Court must review de novo the portions of the report to which objections are
made. The Court has discretion to conduct a new hearing and may consider the record before the
magistrate judge anew or receive any further evidence deemed necessary. Id. “If no objection or
only partial objection is made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear
error.” Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). As the Plaintiff has filed
an objection, the Court will review the R & R de novo.
Summary judgment must be granted “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.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Spath v. Hayes Wheels
Int’l-Ind., Inc., 211 F.3d 392, 396 (7th Cir. 2000). The reviewing court must construe the

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable inferences
in favor of that party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986); Chelios v.
Heavener, 520 F.3d 678, 685 (7th Cir. 2008); Spath, 211 F.3d at 396.
Inmates bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with respect to prison conditions must
first exhaust all administrative remedies that may be available to them before filing a lawsuit. 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 2008). The Seventh Circuit has
taken a strict compliance approach to exhaustion. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir.
2006). Inmates must follow all grievance rules established by the correctional authority. Id.
Defendant Chapman argues that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies
with regard to the single count of Plaintiff’s amended complaint which alleges deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s serious dental needs during the period 2013-2014.
Plaintiff’s first objection states that the Defendant should not have been allowed to file a
reply brief since no exception circumstances were present.

(Doc. 53, pg 1).

Although

disfavored, it is within the Court’s discretion to consider a reply brief and the Plaintiff could
have motioned to supplement his response if he believed it necessary. Local Rule 7.1.
Next, Plaintiff alleges that he does not have to wait for the exhaustion prior to filing suit
where there is an emergency need or situation. Plaintiff argues that when there is an immediate
need or emergency situation, there is no adequate remedy available besides filing suit and
seeking a preliminary injunction.
It is clear that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995(“PLRA”), 110 Stat. 1321–71, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e et seq., require that exhaustion of administrative remedies is
mandatory before a prisoner may challenge the conditions of their confinement. See also
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006).

Plaintiff filed a single, non-emergency grievance, and failed to file any emergency
grievances which may have been resolved prior to the filing of this suit. Numerous “requests
and letters” do not fall within the procedural process that prisoners are required to follow in order
to exhaust administrative remedies.
Plaintiff also argues that his failure to complete the grievance process was known to the
Court at the time of the filing of the suit and the Court should have dismissed it at threshold
without prejudice to allow him to complete the grievance procedure. Per this Court’s Order
(Doc. 1), Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint narrowly escaped dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. The purpose of the preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) is to filter
out nonmeritorious claims. The issue of exhaustion is a discovery issue and not one that is
addressed within the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A) review.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. 53) also contains the following
requests:
a. Interlocutory appeal on the issue of exhaustion;
b. Appointment of counsel for the appeal; and/or
c. An abeyance (or stay) of this matter for one year.
Judgment in this matter is a final order and therefore, appealable. As such, the request
for an interlocutory appeal is moot. Plaintiff may request counsel for appeal, but such a request
would need to be in the form of a separate motion. Finally, the request for an abeyance or stay is
also moot since exhaustion of administrative remedies must be completed prior to filing suit and
any additional delay in the deposition of this matter would not eliminate or change that
requirement.

Plaintiff, by his own admission, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety (Doc.
52) and Defendant Chapman's Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust
Administrative Remedies (Doc. 34) is GRANTED.

This matter is DISMISSED without

prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to entered judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 6/30/2015
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE