Jackson v. Wexford Health Sources et al

Filing 139

ORDER ADOPTING 134 Report and Recommendations. Defendants' Joint Motion for Summary Judgment 109 on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Furthermore, Defendant John R. Baldwin is DISMISSED without prejudice from this action. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/27/2017. (mlp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICHAEL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES
(Director), WEXFORD HEALTH
SOURCES (Mental Health Director),
TERRY WILLIAMS, DR. GARLAND,
DR. MARONO, MS. MOSS, MR.
ANGUS, MR. ALLIE, MS.
DUCKWORTH, WARDEN BEASTEN,
DR. KELLY, DR. OBASIS, MS. LARRY,
MS. HEART, WARDEN LIMPSKI, DR.
BUTLER, DR. BAIGE, DR. SEHASIAN,
MR. FRANKLIN, DR. TROST, DR.
JOSEPH, OFFICER COX, MS.
STEPHANIE, MCCLURE, C/O
SLABENS, C/O LEPOSKY, DR.
MATTHEWS, MS. THOMAS, MS.
MEYERS, DIRECTOR ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Dr. G, and UNKNOWN PARTY,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:15-CV-920-NJR-DGW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson (Doc. 134), which recommends granting in
part and denying in part the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion
of administrative remedies filed by Defendants (Doc. 109). The Report and
Recommendation was entered on March 1, 2017. No objections were filed.

Page 1 of 6

Plaintiff Michael Jackson, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections,
filed this lawsuit on August 19, 2015 (Doc. 1), asserting that the 32 prison officials named
as Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, Jackson claims that
Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health and medical needs,
that several officials caused him to incur disciplinary sanctions for behaviors caused by
his mental illness, and that certain officers used excessive force when they physically
assaulted him in June 2015. After an initial review of the Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A (Doc. 9), Jackson was permitted to proceed on nine counts.
On August 4, 2016, all Defendants who have entered their appearance filed a joint
motion for summary judgment arguing that Jackson failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. §1997e, et seq., prior to
commencing this lawsuit (Doc. 109). Defendants argue that Jackson has not exhausted
his administrative remedies because he failed to properly file and appeal any grievances
concerning Defendants’ treatment of his alleged medical and mental health conditions,
use of force, or issuance of disciplinary tickets. Defendants assert that Jackson filed only
two potentially relevant grievances and, of those two grievances, only one was appealed
to the Administrative Review Board (“ARB”). However, because the ARB did not
respond to that grievance prior to Jackson filing this lawsuit, he failed to properly
exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore, Defendants argue, Jackson’s claims
must be dismissed, and the Court should enter summary judgment in their favor.
In response, Jackson argues that he has attempted to file 20 to 30 grievances over
the course of his incarceration, but that officers would often refuse or fail to provide him

Page 2 of 6

with grievance forms while he was in segregation. When he did receive a form, he would
submit the grievance by addressing it to the Warden and handing it to a correctional
officer. Jackson claims he is unaware of any grievance procedures and has never been
told that his manner of submitting grievances is incorrect. Jackson claims that from 2010
to the present, he has only received one response to his grievances. Jackson argues that
because he did not receive responses to the majority of his grievances, the grievance
process was rendered unavailable to him, and he is deemed to have exhausted his
administrative remedies. Thus, Jackson argues, Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment should be denied.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing pursuant to Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739
(7th Cir. 2008), on February 27, 2017, and issued the Report and Recommendation
currently before the Court on March 1, 2017 (Doc. 134). The Report and
Recommendation accurately states the nature of the evidence presented, as well as the
applicable law and the requirements of the administrative process.
Where timely objections are filed, this Court must undertake a de novo review of
the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B), (C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b);
SDIL-LR 73.1(b); Harper v. City of Chicago Heights, 824 F. Supp. 786, 788 (N.D. Ill. 1993); see
also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). Where neither timely nor specific
objections to the Report and Recommendation are made, however, this Court need not
conduct a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
140 (1985). Instead, the Court should review the Report and Recommendation for clear
error. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999). The Court may then

Page 3 of 6

“accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
While a de novo review is not required here, the Court has considered the evidence
and fully agrees with the findings, analysis, and conclusions of Magistrate Judge
Wilkerson. Magistrate Judge Wilkerson determined that Jackson was credible in his
assertion that he attempted to submit multiple grievances regarding certain claims in
this case but that he did not receive responses, thus rendering the grievance process
unavailable as to those specific claims. 1 Magistrate Judge Wilkerson also found Jackson
credible with regard to his claim that he was told to submit grievances to the correctional
officers because he was in segregation, and that no one indicated to him that this manner
of grieving his issues was inappropriate. It is not the Court’s role at this juncture to
second-guess Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s credibility determinations. See Pavey v.
Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011); Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995)
(“The district court is not required to conduct another hearing to review the magistrate
judge’s findings or credibility determinations”).
Because prison officials failed to submit Jackson’s grievances to the appropriate
persons, the grievance process was rendered unavailable, and Jackson is deemed to have
exhausted his administrative remedies. For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34), and GRANTS in
part and DENIES in part the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion
filed by Defendants (Doc. 109). Accordingly, Defendant John R. Baldwin is DISMISSED

Based on Jackson’s testimony at the Pavey hearing, Magistrate Judge Wilkerson found that he only
exhausted certain claims stated in his Complaint.

1

Page 4 of 6

without prejudice. In addition, the following claims are DISMISSED without
prejudice:
1. The claims in Count 2 against Defendants Tarry Williams (“Terry
Williams”) and Michael Lemke (“Warden Limpski”);
2. Count 3 in its entirety;
3. The claims in Count 5 against Defendants Dr. Jonathan Kelly (“Dr.
Kelly”) and Dr. Saleh Obaisi (“Dr. Obasis”);
4. The claim in Count 6 against Defendant Dr. Mirza Baig (“Dr. Baige”);
and
5. Count 9 in its entirety.
The following claims remain in this suit:
Count 1:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against
Defendants Wexford Health Sources (Director and Mental
Health Director) for maintaining policies and practices,
including the failure to train their employees, that resulted in
the denial of mental health treatment to Plaintiff during his
incarceration in Western, Pontiac, Stateville, and Menard; as
well as his continued placement in segregation as
punishment for behavior caused by his mental illness;

Count 2:

Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant Warden Randy
Pfister, for failing to train staff to deal with mentally ill
prisoners such as Plaintiff, maintaining a policy of punishing
Plaintiff and other mentally ill prisoners for behavior caused
by mental illness rather than providing mental health
treatment, and failing to provide adequate mental health
services to Plaintiff while he was in punitive segregation;

Count 4:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Pontiac mental health provider Defendants Dr. John Garlick,
Dr. Daidra Marano, Andrea Moss, Alton Angus, William
Alley, Linda Duckworth, and Matthews, for failing to
provide Plaintiff with treatment for his serious mental illness;

Count 5:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Stateville mental health provider Defendants Dr. Catherine

Page 5 of 6

Larry and Elizabeth Hart, for failing to provide Plaintiff with
treatment for his serious mental illness;
Count 6:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Menard mental health provider Defendants Dr. Sudarshan
Suneja, Franklin, Dr. G, Brook Thomas, Cortney Meyers, and
Dr. Sylvia Butler, for failing to provide Plaintiff with
treatment for his serious mental illness;

Count 8:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Menard
correctional officer Defendants Curtis Cox, Christopher
McClure, Joel Slavens, Garrett Leposky, and the Unknown
(John Doe) Lieutenant, for beating Plaintiff on June 7, 2015,
and/or failing to intervene to stop the beating;

Count 10:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Menard physician Defendants Dr. John Trost and Joseph, for
failing to treat Plaintiff’s complaints about blood in his urine
and pain in his stomach, side, and back, after Plaintiff’s
x-rays showed a razor blade inside his body.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 27, 2017
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 6 of 6