Peters v. Butler et al

Filing 238

ORDER denying 185 Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies filed by Defendants John Baldwin, Chad Beltz,Kimberly Butler, Kieth Gibson, Donald Lindenberg, Matthew Mason, Carl McFarland,Allan Ripley, Virgil Smith, and Major Bill Westfall. Signed by Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 3/18/2019.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
)
KIMBERLY BUTLER, DR. JOHN
TROST, KIETH GIBSON, ALLAN
)
)
RIPLEY, DONALD LINDENBERG,
WEXFORD HEALTHCARE,
)
MATTHEW MASON, CHAD BELTZ,
)
)
CARL MCFARLAND, JEFFREY
ROLLAND, JOHN BALDWIN, MAJOR )
BILL WESTFALL, and VIRGIL SMITH, )
)
)
Defendants.
SCOTT PETERS,

Case No. 16-CV-382-NJR-MAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Pending before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, filed by Defendants Kimberly Butler, John
Baldwin, Bill Westfall, Donald Lindenberg, Kieth Gibson, Allan Ripley, Virgil Smith,
Chad Beltz, Matthew Mason, and Carl McFarland (Doc. 185). 1 For the following reasons,
the motion is denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Scott Peters is an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections
(“IDOC”), currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”) (Doc. 193,

The Court previously scheduled a hearing on this motion but subsequently concluded that a
hearing is not necessary. Thus, the hearing and writ for Peters’s appearance were canceled (see
Doc. 237).
1

Page 1 of 8

p. 2). He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights
(Id.).
A. The Third-Amended Complaint
According to the Third Amended Complaint, Peters is a disabled veteran who
sustained severe injuries to his spine, pelvis, hips, legs, and internal organs while on duty
in the United States Army (Id. at p. 3). As a result, Peters cannot freely ambulate, and he
suffers from chronic pain (Id.). While incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center
(“Stateville”), Peters received a wheelchair to help him ambulate and was prescribed
Neurontin for nerve damage, Meloxicam for arthritic inflammation, and Flexeril for
easement of movement and back spasms (Id. at pp. 3-4). On or about March 11, 2016,
Peters was transferred to Menard (Id. at p. 4). Peters was first taken to Logan Correctional
Center, then to Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”), and finally, to
Menard (Id.). When Peters arrived at Pinckneyville, Defendants Hinley, Smith, Mason,
Beltz, McFarland, and Rolland physically carried Peters to segregation by his shackles
(Id.). Peters remained on the floor of the segregation cell for three hours, while Defendants
Hinley, Smith, Mason, Beltz, McFarland, and Rolland assaulted him (Id.). An unknown
lieutenant arrived at the cell and demanded Peters try to walk (Id.). After a failed attempt
at walking, Defendants Hinley, Smith, Mason, Beltz, McFarland, and Rolland carried
Peters by his shackles to the bus transporting him to Menard (Id. at 5). During the transfer,
Peters was physically moved from two buses without any type of handicap assistance
device (Id. at p. 4).

Page 2 of 8

Upon arriving at Menard, Defendant Westfall dragged Peters up the stairs and
into a cell, where an unknown correctional officer stomped on his pelvis (Id. at p. 5). Five
Menard correctional officers, including Defendants Ripley and Lindenberg, forcefully
stripped Peters of his clothes and carried him with his hands behind his back (Id.). The
force caused Peters’s shoulder to tear and separate (Id.). Peters was removed from
segregation ten days later. He asked for a wheelchair and his medications, but
Defendants Wexford and Trost denied his requests (Id.).
Peters proceeds on the following claims: cruel and unusual punishment against
Wexford (Count 1); cruel and unusual punishment against Baldwin (Count 2); cruel and
unusual punishment against all Defendants (Count 3); and denial of medical treatment
against Baldwin, Trost, and Wexford (Count 4).
B. Procedural Background
Peters filed an initial complaint on March 28, 2016 (Doc. 1), and an amended
complaint on August 23, 2016 (Doc. 78). The Court determined the amended complaint
did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and appointed Peters counsel
(Doc. 106 & 107). Peters filed a second amended complaint on February 2, 2018 (Doc. 137).
On October 16, 2017, Defendant Trost filed a motion for summary judgment on
the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. 123). Trost argued Peters did not
exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this suit (Id.). The Court determined
an evidentiary hearing was not necessary under Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir.
2008) and denied the motion (Doc. 162). The Court found that Peters submitted an
emergency grievance on March 22, 2016, which detailed the abuse he allegedly endured
Page 3 of 8

during his transfer from Pinckneyville to Menard (Id.). Because the Warden never
responded to the grievance, Peters was not required to take any further action to exhaust
his remedies (Id.).
On July 11, 2018, Defendants Baldwin, Beltz, Butler, Gibson, Lindenberg, Mason,
McFarland, Ripley, Smith, and Westfall also filed a motion for summary judgment on the
issue of exhaustion (Doc. 185). They argue Peters did not file a grievance regarding the
March 11, 2016 incident before filing this suit on March 28, 2016, so he did not exhaust
his administrative remedies (Id.).
Peters filed a timely response, arguing he repeatedly requested grievance forms
after arriving at Menard, but could not acquire a form until March 22, 2016 (Doc. 26). He
also argues his shoulder was broken during the incident, which would have made it hard
for him to fill out a grievance (Id.). Finally, Peters argues the grievance process was
rendered unavailable to him when the Warden failed to respond to the emergency
grievance he submitted on March 22, 2016 (Id.).
C. Relevant Grievance
Peters attached a handwritten copy of the emergency grievance he submitted on
March 22, 2016 (Id. at pp. 6-7). It reads,
On 3-11-16 I was brought to Pinckneyville and that was the begining [sic]
of the abusive beatings. I was carried and brought to Menard where I was
abused by having my feet dragged up the stairs by handcuffs and leg
[illegible]. I was then thrown in segregation hole for 9 days until my
violation for not being able to walk because of my military service [illegible]
handicaps. When I was removed from segregation I was taken to a room
they called property and beaten by officers [illegible]. I only have a few
names. But it’s a little hard to get what [illegible] being beat. I have names
but I’m too terrified and fearing for my life if someone [illegible] . . .
Page 4 of 8

(Id.). Under the “Relief Requested” section of the grievance, Peters states,
To get help or be sent back to Stateville where I won’t suffer so bad because
of my case. They [illegible] try to kill me because of my case and [illegible]
my handicaps. Help they will kill me. I am a [illegible] veteran disabled. I
have a state handicap [illegible] CE21143. I won’t be safe anywhere here I
was told because of my case. If I am [illegible] to death here. Thank you. I’m
having a terrible situation. My shoulder seems separated from the last time.
My ribs are cracked or broken and now things move brutally. Threatened
to kill me and rape me all over a case and because I can’t walk or x ray my
ribs, pelvis, leg my pain with no medications because they were [illegible]
angry is unbelievable. I have no blankets, sheets, underwear, glasses. I’m
real so bad I can’t breathe. Why I didn’t do anything. But my protect my
family and almost die for this country. Please [illegible] . . .
(Id.). Peters states he never received a response to the grievance, and nothing in the record
indicates otherwise (Id.).
LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is proper only where the moving party can demonstrate no
genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Ruffin-Thompkins
v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 422 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2005). All facts and
reasonable inferences must be construed in favor of the non-moving party. Blow v. Bijora,
Inc., 855 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir. 2017) (citing Calumet River Fleeting, Inc. v. Int’l Union of
Operating Eng’rs, Local 150, AFL-CIO, 824 F.3d 645, 647-48 (7th Cir. 2016)).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires prisoners to exhaust all
administrative remedies before bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 808 (7th Cir. 2006). Proper exhaustion requires an inmate
Page 5 of 8

to “file complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative
rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002).
Under the procedures set forth in the Illinois Administrative Code, an inmate is
required to file a written grievance within 60 days of the “incident, occurrence or problem
that gives rise to the grievance.” 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a). The grievance must be
filed with the inmate’s counselor, unless certain discrete issues are being grieved. Id. If
the complaint is not resolved through a counselor, the grievance is considered by a
grievance officer who must render a written recommendation to the Chief Administrative
Officer (usually the Warden) within two months of receipt, “when reasonably feasible
under the circumstances.” Id. at § 504.830(e). The Warden then advises the inmate of a
decision on the grievance. Id.
An inmate may also file an emergency grievance that is forwarded directly to the
Warden. Id. at § 504.840. If “there is a substantial risk of imminent personal injury or other
serious or irreparable harm to the offender,” consideration of the grievance will be
expedited. Id. at § 504.840(a) and (b). An inmate may appeal the Warden’s decision to the
IDOC Director. Id. at § 504.850(a). The appeal must be in writing, must be directed to the
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”), and must be received by the ARB within 30 days
of the date of the Warden’s response. See also Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 806-07 (7th
Cir. 2006). The ARB will submit a written report of its findings and recommendations to
the Director who shall review the same and make a final determination within six months
of receipt of the appeal. Id. § 504.850(d) and (e).

Page 6 of 8

An inmate is required to exhaust only those administrative remedies available to
him. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Seventh Circuit has held that administrative remedies
become “unavailable” when prison officials fail to respond to inmate grievances. Lewis v.
Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002); Brengettcy v. Horton, 423 F.3d 674, 682 (7th
Cir. 2005).
DISCUSSION
The Court already determined the administrative process was rendered
unavailable to Peters after the March 11, 2016 incident and until the filing of this lawsuit
(Docs. 162 & 165). Defendants do not offer any reason for disturbing the Court’s findings.
As noted in the previous Order (Doc. 162), Peters submitted an emergency grievance on
March 22, 2016, and never received a response. Thus, he did not have to take any further
actions to exhaust his remedies. The emergency grievance also complies with IDOC’s
instruction to provide a “Brief Summary” of the complaints (Doc. 206). Peters describes
how he was beaten, abused, and dragged around by his shackles on March 11, 2016,
which is enough to alert prison officials to his problems. See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709,
722 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5th Cir. 2004) (“We are
mindful that the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a
problem . . .”). Peters followed IDOC procedures and exhausted all his available
administrative remedies. Defendants have not met their burden of establishing they are
entitled to summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion.

Page 7 of 8

CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion
of Administrative Remedies (Doc. 185), filed by Defendants John Baldwin, Chad Beltz,
Kimberly Butler, Kieth Gibson, Donald Lindenberg, Matthew Mason, Carl McFarland,
Allan Ripley, Virgil Smith, and Major Bill Westfall is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 18, 2019

___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge

Page 8 of 8