Jones v. Estes et al

Filing 65

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Daly (Doc. 61 ). The Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion filed by Defendants Steven Estes and John Wolfe (Doc. 51 ) is DENIED. The Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion filed by Defendants Wanda Hill, Molly McElvain, and Stacie Murray (Doc. 48 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 1/29/2018. (mah)

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

JOSEPH JONES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVEN ESTES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-CV-835-SMY-RJD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United
States Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly (Doc. 61), recommending that the Court grant Defendants
Wanda Hill, Molly McElvain, and Stacie Murray’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue
of Exhaustion (Doc. 48).

1

Plaintiff filed a timely objection (Doc. 62). For the following

reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Plaintiff Joseph Jones, currently incarcerated at Hill Correctional Center, filed this
lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants Hill, Murray and McElvain
violated his constitutional rights by failing to protect him from his cellmate while Plaintiff was
incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”).

Additionally, Plaintiff

claims that the Defendants are liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants
1

Judge Daly also recommended that this Court deny Defendants Steven Estes and John Wolfe's Motion for
Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion (Doc. 51). Neither party objected to Judge Daly's recommendation
regarding the denial of Defendants Estes and Wolfe's motion. Where no timely objections to the Report and
Recommendation are made, 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 fully agrees with Judge Daly’s
findings that Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies as to those Defendants. Accordingly, Defendant's Estes
and Wolfe's motion is denied.

Page 1 of 4

Hill, McElvain, and Murray worked as medical personnel at Pinckneyville.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies prior to filing suit. As required by Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th
Cir. 2008), Judge Daly held an evidentiary hearing on Defendants’ motion. Following the Pavey
hearing, Judge Daly issued the R&R currently before the Court. The R&R accurately states the
nature of the evidence presented by both sides on the issue of exhaustion, as well as the
applicable law and the requirements of the administrative process. Judge Daly found that
Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to Defendants Hill, McElvain, and
Murray. She noted that Plaintiff's February 8, 2016, grievance does not identify Defendants
Murray, Hill, or McElvain, and although it refers to a wing officer and sergeant, it does not
allude to any medical personnel.
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); see also Govas v. Chalmers, 965 F.2d 298, 301 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court may accept,
reject or modify the magistrate judge's recommended decision.

Id.

In making this

determination, the Court must look at all of the evidence contained in the record and give fresh
consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made. Id., quoting 12
Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 3076.8, at p. 55 (1st Ed. 1973)
(1992 Pocket Part).
For his objection, Plaintiff maintains that Defendants Murray, Hill, and McElvain were
put on notice because he stated in his grievance that he went on suicide watch. Plaintiff further
contends that during the evidentiary hearing, he testified to informing each Defendant between
February 5, 2016 and February 7, 2016 that there were threats on his life. He also asserts that if

Page 2 of 4

the Defendants had followed prison policies and procedures, he would not have needed to file a
grievance in the first place.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to exhaust all available
administrative remedies before filing suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Supreme Court has held
that exhaustion of administrative remedies must be done “properly,” because “no adjudicative
system can function effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its
proceedings.” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90–91 (2006). Proper exhaustion requires that a
prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the place, at the time, and in the manner that the
prison’s administrative rules require. Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002).
In this case, proper exhaustion required Plaintiff to file a grievance containing factual
details regarding each aspect of his complaint, including what happened, when, where, and the
name (or a description) of each person who was the subject of or who was otherwise involved in
the complaint. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.810(c). Plaintiff's grievance is devoid of any
allegations concerning Defendants Murray, Hill, or McElvain. In the grievance, Plaintiff claims
that on February 5, 2016, he was placed on suicide watch because he was having suicidal
thoughts and that he was taken off suicide watch on February 7, 2016. At that time, he informed
the “sergeant” that he feared for his life because his cellmate, who is known for assaulting other
inmates, threatened to “kill the wing officer of C.” Plaintiff does not deny that his grievance
lacks specific allegations or complaints against Defendants Murray, Hill, or McElvain. The fact
that Plaintiff talked to the Defendants sometime following the filing of his grievance is
irrelevant.
Overall, the Court finds Judge Daly’s factual findings and rationale to be sound. It is
well established that an inmate cannot file suit first, then reach administrative exhaustion second.

Page 3 of 4

See Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d 714, 719 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, it is apparent to the Court
that Plaintiff did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies as to Defendants Murray, Hill, and
McElvain prior to filing suit.
Accordingly, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Daly’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 61). This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies as to Defendants Wanda Hill, Molly McElvain, and Stacie Murray.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 29, 2018

s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4