Allen v. County of Williamson et al

Filing 81

ORDER granting 61 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by Scott Asherman. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/4/2016. (rlw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BILL ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARILYN REYNOLDS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:14-cv-01028-SMY-PMF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is defendant Scott Asherman’s motion for summary judgment on the
issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. No. 61). Plaintiff Bill Allen is challenging
the conditions of his former detention at the Williamson County Jail between October, 2012, and
November, 2013. The exhaustion defense was initially raised in Asherman’s answer (Doc. No.
39).

Plaintiff’s response to Asherman’s motion was due on November 12, 2015. A timely

response was not filed. After the response was due, Allen filed a brief response indicating that
he has no objection to Asherman’s motion (Doc. No. 75).
Initially, the Court notes that Asherman filed a reply (Doc. No. 70). The reply violates
Local Rule 7.1 (requiring exceptional circumstances) and the undersigned’s case management
procedure. Accordingly, the reply (Doc. No. 70) is STRICKEN.
The motion targets plaintiff’s claim that Asherman responded with deliberate indifference
his serious medical need for treatment of hypertension (part of Count 1). Detainees who are
unhappy with aspects of their jail confinement are required to exhaust available administrative
remedies before turning to the Court for a remedy. 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a); Woodford v. Ngo, 548
U.S. 81, 84 (2006). Failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved
by the defendant. Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740-41 (7th Cir. 2008). The jail’s procedural
rules establish the contours of the requirement. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). In
other words, to exhaust, inmates must filed complaints and appeals in the place and at the time

the jail’s administrative rules require. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002).
Grievances are intended to give jail administrators an opportunity to address a concern. They do
not need to place individual defendants on notice of an impending lawsuit. Jones, 549 U.S. at
218.

The defendants may not demand that inmates take steps beyond those that the

administrative rules require. Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006). Similarly,
inmates are not required to complete procedural steps that are effectively unavailable. Id.
During Allen’s detention, the Williamson County Jail had a grievance procedure,
requiring detainees to first attempt to resolve problems with staff informally before filing a
“Prisoner Grievance Form” with the housing officer. From there, the procedure includes four
steps, progressing from the housing officer to the shift sergeant, to the jail administrator, and
ultimately to the sheriff. The sheriff’s decision is the final step (Doc. No. 61-1, p. 10).
Allen filed only one prisoner grievance form, complaining about a condition unrelated to
this case (Doc. No. 61-1, p. 13). He did not file a grievance describing defendant Asherman’s
alleged misconduct (Doc. No. 61-2, pp. 5; 61-3, p. 5). He elected not to pursue an administrative
remedy regarding his medical needs because he anticipated that he would be separated from
other detainees and held in isolation for medical observation (Doc. No. 61-2, p. 6). As noted
above, Allen has no objection to the motion.
The Court is satisfied that defendant Asherman has carried his burden of proof on his
affirmative defense. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s claim against Asherman (part of Count 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies.

SO ORDERED:
DATE: January 4, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2