Rankin v. Wanack et al

Filing 73

ORDER GRANTING Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants Vipin Shah and B Little (Doc. 49 ). Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/12/2017. (mah).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ANDRE RANKIN, N12514,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DONALD J. WANACK, VIPIN SHAH and )
B. LITTLE,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 15-CV-544-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants
Brandy Little and Vipin Shah (Doc. 49). This is a prisoner civil rights action and these
defendants argue that Plaintiff Andre Rankin failed to exhaust administrative remedies before
filing suit. Defendant Donald J. Wanack has not filed such a motion. For the following reasons,
the motion is GRANTED.
Rankin filed his Complaint on May 13, 2015 (Doc. 1).

Rankin alleges that his

constitutional rights were violated while at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”).
According to the Complaint, Rankin requested a cell transfer on May 22, 2013 after his cellmate
attempted to attack him. Despite his complaints to Correctional Officer Wanack, Rankin was
placed back in the cell and was subsequently assaulted by his cellmate. Rankin further alleges
that Vipin Shah (prison physician) and Brandy Little (prison nurse) provided inadequate medical
care for his resulting injuries.
On July 15, 2015, the undersigned screened Rankin’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A (Doc. 6) and found that Rankin articulated the following colorable claims:

1

Count 1: Defendant Wanack violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to
protect him from an assault by Inmate Biggs on May 22, 2013 (Doc. 1, p. 8);
Count 2: Defendant Wanack violated Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by using
excessive force when removing Plaintiff from his cell following the assault on May 22,
2013 (Doc. 1, p. 8);
Count 3: Defendant Wanack retaliated against Plaintiff for complaining about his cell
assignment with Inmate Biggs, in violation of the First Amendment, by moving him back
to the cell with Inmate Biggs on May 22, 2013, and to segregation on July 15, 2014 (Doc.
1, p. 8);
Count 4: Defendants Little and Shah exhibited deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s
serious medical needs, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, when they denied
adequate medical care for the injuries he sustained on May 22, 2013 (Doc. 1, p. 8).
Discussion
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.
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.
As an Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) prisoner, Rankin must utilize the
IDOC grievance process. IDOC regulations set forth a three step grievance process for general
prison grievances (i.e., non-emergency grievances and grievances not subject to direct ARB
review pursuant to Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504.870). First, the prisoner must attempt to
resolve the issue informally with his counselor. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504.810(a). After

2

receiving the counselor’s response, the prisoner may proceed to step two by filing a written
grievance with the institution’s grievance officer. Id. The grievance officer will then “consider
the grievance and report his or her findings and recommendations in writing to the [warden].” Ill.
Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504.830(d). The warden will review the grievance officer’s
recommendation and issue a decision in writing to the prisoner. Id. If the prisoner is dissatisfied
with the warden’s decision, he may appeal the grievance to the IDOC Administrative Review
Board (“ARB”) in Springfield. Ill. Admin. Code tit. 20, § 504.850(a). The grievance process is
deemed completed when the ARB issues a decision.
Upon review of the documents submitted with the Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and the Plaintiff’s response in opposition, it is clear that Rankin did not properly
exhaust administrative remedies against Defendants Shah and Little. On either June 11, 2013 or
June 16, 2013, Rankin drafted a lengthy grievance detailing the incidents with his cellmate and
Defendant Wanack (Doc. 50-2, p. 4). In the “relief requested” section of the grievance form,
Rankin requests:
1) That D. Wanack be suspended pending an investigation of this incident. 2) That inmate
R. Biggs be charged for assaulting me with a weapon. 3) That there be no retaliation in
respects to this incident [sic]. 4) That I be reimbursed for my watch and property.
Id. Rankin’s counselor then forwarded the grievance to the Pinckneyville grievance office which
received it on June 20, 2013. Id. The grievance office later issued a report recommending that
Rankin’s grievance be denied and the Pinckneyville warden affirmed the recommendation on
October 2, 2013 (Doc. 50-2, p. 2). Rankin then appealed the decision to the ARB and the ARB
issued a denial on March 3, 2014 (Doc. 50-2, p. 1). Although Rankin’s grievance briefly
mentions his medical treatment at the Pinckneyville Health Care Unit, it does not mention

3

Defendants Shah or Little, he doesn’t appear to complain about the care received and he doesn’t
mention medical care in the “relief requested” section. Because Rankin’s grievance cannot be
said to put the IDOC on notice of any healthcare related problems, it does not properly exhaust
administrative remedies against Defendants Shah or Little.
However, Rankin did submit another grievance which does address medical treatment
issues. On June 24, 2013 Rankin drafted a grievance complaining of medical treatment he
received (Doc. 60-3, p. 2). Rankin states in his grievance that on June 13, 2013, he was placed in
sick call line and examined by a nurse. Id. When Rankin attempted to notify the nurse (later
identified in the Complaint as Defendant Little) that his right hand little finger had been injured
in the attack by his cellmate, the nurse told Rankin that the purpose of the examination was to
evaluate “teeth pain.” Id. She declined to examine his hand, but did give Rankin acetaminophen
(Tylenol) tablets. Id. Rankin’s grievance further states that he would like to be examined by a
doctor and that he would like to be reimbursed the $5.00 medical co-pay he submitted. Id.
While this grievance would have contained sufficient information to exhaust remedies
against Defendant Little, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Rankin ever
completed all the necessary steps in the grievance process. Rankin’s counselor responded to the
grievance on June 28, 2013, stating, “The chart reflects that on 6/13/13 you were seen for teeth
pain not finger pain. The $5.00 copay should be charged for this visit” (Doc. 60-3, p. 2). After
this response, there is nothing in the record indicating that Rankin ever submitted the grievance
to the Pinckneyville grievance office or the ARB. In his response to Defendants’ motion, Rankin
asserts that he “possibly” submitted it to the grievance office (Doc. 60, p. 11), but such
speculation is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c)(1) (“a party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the

4

assertion by … citing to particular parts of materials in the record”). There is no evidence that the
June 24, 2013 grievance was fully exhausted. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants Brandy
Little and Vipin Shah at the conclusion of this litigation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 12, 2017
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

5