Edwards v. Godinez et al

Filing 51

ORDER re 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Defendants' 26 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Exhaustion is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. In light of this Order, 50 MO TION to Stay Discovery filed by Tony Stoner, Salvador Godinez, Kyle Massey, James Johnson, and John Mohr is MOOT and 37 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Frank Edwards is MOOT. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 2/22/2016. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
FRANK EDWARDS,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
SALVADOR GODINEZ, JAMES JOHNSON,)
C/O KYLE MASSEY, C/O JOHN MOHR, )
)
and C/O TONY STONER,
)
)
Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-1363-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Frank Edwards 1 is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections currently incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center. Plaintiff brings this action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging she was sexually assaulted at Big Muddy Correctional
Center (“Big Muddy”) on September 19, 2014. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
on May 27, 2015 asserting Plaintiff filed this lawsuit prior to exhausting his administrative
remedies (Doc. 26) and the Court held a hearing on said motion on August 31, 2015 (see Doc. 41).
After being fully briefed on the issues and hearing oral arguments, the undersigned issued a Report
and Recommendation recommending that District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel grant Defendants’
motion for summary judgment, find that Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies prior
to filing this lawsuit, and dismiss this lawsuit without prejudice. Plaintiff timely filed objections
to the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation on October 19, 2015 (Doc. 46). On November
1

As explained in Judge Rosenstengel’s Referral Order (Doc. 8), Plaintiff’s legal name is Frank
Edwards; however, he claims to be a transgender inmate who prefers to be called Tracey Edwards.
Although the Court must use Plaintiff’s legal name, feminine pronouns will be used to reference
Plaintiff Edwards.
Page 1 of 3

2, 2015, the final consent to proceed before the undersigned to conduct all proceedings in this
matter was received and it was properly referred to this Court on November 6, 2015.
Accordingly, the undersigned’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 44) is converted to an
Order of the Court and the attendant objection filed by Plaintiff (Doc. 46) is construed as a Motion
to Reconsider. In asking the Court to reconsider its ruling, Plaintiff asserts that she attempted to
fully exhaust her administrative grievances, but was thwarted. In particular, Plaintiff takes issue
with the Court’s finding that she did not attempt to file a grievance on September 20, 2014.
Plaintiff attempts to refute the Court’s finding that “there is no competent, corroborating evidence
that Plaintiff submitted a grievance on September 20, 2014” by pointing to her November 14, 2014
grievance. Plaintiff asserts that this grievance evidences the fact that she attempted to file a
grievance on September 20, 2014 in that it references an internal affairs investigation on
September 20, 2014 and inquires as to why a previous grievance has not been returned. The
Court has reviewed the November 14, 2014 and finds that it does not provide the corroborating
evidence Plaintiff believes it does. Specifically, this grievance references Plaintiff’s October 24,
2014 grievance and indicates she had not received a response. The only mention of September
20, 2014 was in reference to an internal affairs investigation, not a grievance.
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, as well as the undersigned’s converted
Order, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing
suit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 46) is DENIED and Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26) is GRANTED.

This case is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and any pending
motions are hereby MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of
Defendants and against Plaintiff, and close this case on the Court’s docket.
Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 22, 2016
DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 3 of 3