James v. Hale et al
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, The Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57 ) in its entirety and DENIES Defendant Hale's Motion (Doc. 40 ) for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 12/12/2016. (jdh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DUSTIN M. JAMES,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
DEBRA HALE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 15-cv-01335-JPG-DGW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 57)
of Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson with regard to Defendant Debra Hale’s Motion (Doc. 40)
for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. Defendant Hale filed a
timely objection to the R & R (Doc. 60) and plaintiff filed a response (Doc. 61) to the objection.
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).
The Court has received an objection from the defendant and will
review de novo those portions of the report.
Plaintiff was incarcerated in the St. Clair County Jail and assaulted by another inmate in
January 2015. After the attack, he was at an outside hospital and diagnosed with an orbital
fracture and possible concussion. The plaintiff appeared to be doing well for about a week and
then shortly thereafter, he started to have swelling, numbness and blurred vision. He verbally
Page 1 of 4
informed and sought treatment from Defendant Hale, who is a registered nurse at the St. Clair
facility, until the end of January. Then, on February 11, 2015, he completed a sick call request
and a Captains request stating that his condition was worsening. He did not receive a response.
He completed a second Captains request on February 17, 2015 and did not receive a response.
Plaintiff was taken to segregation on February 20, 2015, and also filed a Captains request on that
day and did not receive a response.
Magistrate Judge Wilkerson held a hearing with regard to the defendant’s motion on
September 28, 2016. At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that he requested “grievance forms”
and was informed that the Captains request served the same function and that grievance forms
were not available. The Magistrate Judge found the plaintiff’s testimony to be credible. As
such, the R & R recommends the denial of the defendant’s motion based upon a finding that
administrative remedies were unavailable to the plaintiff.
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.
As noted in the R & R, the written grievance procedure for St. Clair County Jail states
that, “A Captains request must be submitted prior to the grievance procedure.” (Doc. 41-1,
bold in original.) Defendant argues that the R & R “ignored the sworn affidavit of Officer
Yvonne McCall, in which she avers that . . . no Captain’s Requests or formal grievances
Page 2 of 4
submitted by plaintiff could be located.”
Therefore, “[i]f the plaintiff actually filed said
Captain’s Requests, the St. Clair County Jail would have a record of them, whether or not they
were responded to.” (Doc. 60, pg 3-4). Further, the defendant argues that even if the Court
believes that the plaintiff filed three Captains requests, he still failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as outlined in the St. Clair County Detainee Rules and Regulations
because, “[t]he requirement to submit a Captain’s request is independent of the actual grievance
procedure, as evidence by the fact that it is included merely in a note to the grievance procedure,
rather than the enumerated steps of said procedure.”
Defendant’s argument that the Captains request is “merely in a note” is not well taken
given that the requirement to submit a Captains request is printed in large bold letters –
indicating that a Captains request was a prerequisite to the grievance procedure. Further, the
plaintiff’s testified that he requested grievance forms and was told that a Captains request serves
the same purpose and that he was never provided a grievance form.
The magistrate judge was in the best position to gauge the credibility of the plaintiff’s
testimony at the hearing and he found the plaintiff’s testimony credible. As correctly stated in
the R & R, “[a]n inmate is required to exhaust only those administrative remedies available to
him” and that that “availability of a remedy does not depend on the rules and regulations as they
appear on paper, but on ‘whether the paper process was in reality open for the prisoner to
pursue.” (Doc. 57, pgs 6 -7)(citations omitted.)
The Court has reviewed Defendant Hale’s Motion for Summary Judgment de novo and
finds that administrative remedies were not available to the plaintiff. The Court further finds that
the unobjected to portions of the R & R are not clearly erroneous.
Page 3 of 4
Therefore, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 57) in its
entirety and DENIES Defendant Hale’s Motion (Doc. 40) for Summary Judgment for Failure to
Exhaust.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: 12/12/2016
s/J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 4 of 4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?