Bentz v. Maue et al

Filing 233

ORDER granting 159 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 166 Motion for Summary Judgment. Claims against Jeremy Butler are DISMISSED without prejudice. Count 10 is DISMISSED as to all IDOC Defendants except Billy Conway. Signed by Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel on 6/24/2020. (anp)

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #2184

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROBERT BENTZ,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 16-cv-854-NJR

NATHAN MAUE, WILLIAM QUALLS,
ADAM TOPE, JACOB GUTTERSLOH,
MICHAEL SCHNICKER, RYAN
SADLER, TINA MONROE, WESLEY
MONROE, TYLER JAIMET, KEITH
BENEFIELD, BILLY CONWAY,
MICHAEL SAMUEL, RAYMOND
ALLEN, KENT BROOKMAN,
MICHAEL MONJE, KRISTA ALLSUP,
KIMBERLY BUTLER, JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, DAVID DWIGHT,
JEREMY BUTLER, ANGELA CRAIN,
DOE, and AARON CAMPBELL,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
This matter is before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by Jeremy
Butler (Docs. 159, 160) 1 and Raymond Allen, Krista Allsup, Keith Benefield, Kent
Brookman, Kimberly Butler, Aaron Campbell, Angela Crain, David Dwight, Jacob
Guttersloh, Tyler Jaimet, Jacqueline Lashbrook, Nathan Maue, Michael Monje, Tina
Monroe, Wesley Monroe, William Qualls, Ryan Sadler, Michael Samuel, Adam Tope, and

The motion also included claims against Dr. John Trost. He was later dismissed from the case
(See Doc. 206).

1

Page 1 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #2185

Michael Schnicker (Docs. 166, 167) (“IDOC Defendants”). 2 Plaintiff Robert Bentz filed a
response (Docs. 204, 205), as well as a motion to strike Defendants’ motions (Doc. 203).
Both sets of defendants filed reply briefs and responded to the motion to strike (Docs. 207,
208, and 211). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on June 17, 2020. At the hearing, the
Court denied the motion to strike (Doc. 203) and heard testimony from Bentz and
Lieutenant Kent Brookman.
BACKGROUND
This case has a long and complicated procedural history. Bentz, an inmate of the
Illinois Department of Corrections (“IDOC”) who was housed at Menard Correctional
Center (“Menard”), originally filed his Complaint on July 26, 2016, and it was dismissed
at screening. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and remanded
the case, where it was screened, and separated into eighteen distinct claims (See Doc. 56,
pp. 2-3). Six claims (Counts 13 through 18), including Counts related to the failure to
provide Bentz with adequate medical treatment in 2015 and 2016 (Counts 15, 16-18), were
severed into separate cases (Id. at p. 2). The remaining claims in this case (Counts 1-12)
were duplicative of Bentz’s 2014 case, Bentz v. Qualles, Case No. 14-cv-562-NJR-MAB
(S.D.Ill. filed Feb. 5, 2015) (“2014 case”), which had been dismissed on exhaustion
grounds in February 2017.
Bentz appealed the 2014 case, and the Court stayed this case until the appeal was

Billy Conway has not filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion. The
IDOC Defendants acknowledge that Bentz filed a fully exhausted grievance dated January 24,
2016 that exhausted his retaliation claims against Conway (Doc. 167, pp. 11-12; 167-4, pp. 176177; 167-5).

2

Page 2 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #2186

concluded (Id.). On appeal, the defendants conceded that the district court failed to
resolve a factual dispute as to whether Bentz’s May 12, 2014 emergency grievance was
discarded, and he was thus thwarted from exhausting his administrative remedies. Bentz
v. Qualls, 748 F App’x 54 (7th Cir. 2019). The Seventh Circuit remanded the 2014 case with
an instruction to “take whatever steps [the court] deems necessary to determine whether
Bentz’s first grievance was discarded.” Bentz, 748 F App’x at 56. Bentz later voluntarily
dismissed his 2014 case without the exhaustion issue ever being resolved.
Subsequent to the remand, the Court lifted the stay in this case and screened
Counts 1 through 12. The following counts remain in the case:
Count 1:

Civil conspiracy claim against Maue, Qualls, Tope,
Guttersloh, Sadler, Schnicker, Tina Monroe, Wesley Monroe,
and Brookman for their group participation in the first assault
on May 11, 2014, and subsequent attempt to cover it up.

Count 2:

First Amendment retaliation claim against Maue for
assaulting Plaintiff on May 11, 2014, in response to his
decision to file several lawsuits against prison officials.

Count 3:

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Maue,
Qualls, Tope, and Guttersloh for assaulting Plaintiff on May
11, 2014.

Count 4:

Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim against Sadler,
Schnicker, Tina Monroe, Wesley Monroe, and Brookman for
failing to intervene to stop the assault of Plaintiff on May 11,
2014.

Count 5:

State tort assault and battery claim against Maue, Qualls,
Tope, and Guttersloh for the assault and battery that occurred
on May 11, 2014.

Count 6:

Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical needs
claim against Maue, Qualls, Tope, Guttersloh, Sadler,
Schnicker, Tina Monroe, Wesley Monroe, Brookman, Jeremy
Page 3 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #2187

Butler, Jaimet, Campbell, Benefield, Samuel, Allen Allsup,
Monjie, Kimberly Butler, Dwight, Crain, and Lashbrook for
failing to assist Plaintiff in obtaining medical treatment in
2014 following the assault on May 11, 2014.
Count 7:

State law negligence claim against all non-medical provider
defendants for the conduct described in Count 6.

Count 10:

First Amendment retaliation claim and/or Eighth
Amendment cruel and unusual punishment claim against
Qualls, Conway, Maue, Wesley Monroe, Samuel, Allen,
Campbell, and Jaimet for harassing and threatening Plaintiff
in 2014, 2015, and 2016 for filing grievances and suits.

The assault which forms the basis of the bulk of Bentz’s claims occurred on May
11, 2014. Relevant to the claims against Jeremy Butler, Butler notes that he was a
registered nurse at Menard from October 2011 until December 2014. Defendants list a
number of grievances in their motion, including grievances filed and/or exhausted after
the filing of this lawsuit (Doc. 160, pp. 3-5; Doc. 167, pp. 4-5). The Court finds that it is not
necessary to review all of these additional grievances because Bentz does not appear to
argue that these grievances are relevant to his claims. He “objects” and “disputes” a
number of material facts set forth by all of the defendants but never explains why he
disputes these facts (Doc. 204, p. 2). Nor does he identify any of these grievances as
relevant to his claims. Instead, he adopts his briefs from his 2014 case and his appeal,
which focus on the grievances dated May 11, 2014 and May 16, 2014. Bentz alleges in the
filings that the May 11 grievance was destroyed by Brookman, and he did not need to
further grieve his claims because he was thwarted in the process. Brookman denies that
he destroyed the grievance (Doc. 167-6). He also denies that he worked in Bentz’s
cellhouse and that he picked up mail and/or grievances from inmates (Id.).
Page 4 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #2188

The facts regarding the grievances Bentz argues exhausts his claims are set forth
as follows:
May 11, 2014 Grievance: Bentz alleges that he filed this grievance on May 12,
2014, but he never received a response (Doc. 204, p. 72). He was informed by
Brookman on May 13, 2014 that the grievance had been thrown away (Id.). The
grievance alleges that on May 11, 2014, he was assaulted by Officer Qualls and
Officer Schnicker while on his way back to the cellhouse (Doc. 204, p. 15). Officer
Maue also participated and other officers, including Sadler and other unknown
officers, watched the assault (Id.). After the assault, he informed Samuels and
asked for the assault to be reported and for medical care, but Samuels refused (Id.
at pp. 15-16). He also informed Allen about the assault and he took him to the
medical staff but did not contact internal affairs (Id. at p. 16).
May 16, 2014 Grievance: This grievance was received by the grievance officer on
May 21, 2014, and forwarded to the warden (Doc. 167-2, p. 19). The warden
deemed the grievance a non-emergency and returned it to Bentz on May 22, 2014
(Id.). There is no further record of this grievance being filed through the normal
grievance process or submitted to the ARB (Doc. 167-3, 167-4, and 167-5). Bentz’s
prior responses in his 2014 case alleged that he never received the response
(Doc. 204, p. 78).
Jeremy Butler identifies one additional grievance, dated October 2, 2014, that was
filed prior to Bentz’s Complaint and discusses medical care that Bentz received.
October 2, 2014 Grievance: This grievance alleges that on August 29, 2014, Bentz
Page 5 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #2189

was assaulted by Correctional Officer Lindenberg and Correctional Officer Smith
(Doc. 160-1, pp. 65-66). He requested medical care on numerous occasions
following the assault and submitted a number of medical call passes which went
unanswered. The grievance was fully exhausted (Id. at pp. 62-65). The grievance
was the subject of another of Bentz’s lawsuits, Bentz v. McGlorn, Case No. 18-cv18-NJR.
Although Bentz argued at the evidentiary hearing that there were additional
grievances regarding his medical care he failed to point to them either in his response or
at the hearing. He testified that he did not have access to his materials for the hearing
because of a lockdown and that Defendants did not provide all of his grievances in
discovery. He also alleged that the grievance logs were illegible. While Bentz may not
have had access to his grievance materials for the hearing, he clearly had access in
responding to the original motions. Defendants produced over 550 pages of grievance
records, including complete grievance and Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) logs
for the relevant time period (Docs. 167-1, 167-2, and 167-4). Those logs are legible. Bentz
had enough records to identify any additional grievances he believed were relevant to
the claims in this case. He chose instead to rely on his May 11, 2014 and May 16, 2014
grievances.
LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, discovery materials, disclosures,
and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact such that [Defendants are]
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wragg v. Village of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464, 467
Page 6 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #2190

(7th Cir. 2010). Lawsuits filed by inmates are governed by the provisions of the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). 42 U.S.C. §1997e(a). That statute states, in pertinent part,
that “no action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of
this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other
correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.”
Id. (emphasis added). The Seventh Circuit requires strict adherence to the PLRA’s
exhaustion requirement. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that
“[t]his circuit has taken a strict compliance approach to exhaustion”). Exhaustion must
occur before the suit is filed. Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004). A plaintiff
cannot file suit and then exhaust his administrative remedies while the suit is pending.
Id. Moreover, “[t]o exhaust remedies, a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the
place, and at the time, the prison administrative rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286
F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2005). Consequently, if a prisoner fails to properly utilize a
prison’s grievance process, “the prison administrative authority can refuse to hear the
case, and the prisoner’s claim can be indefinitely unexhausted.” Dole, 438 F.3d at 809.
Under Pavey, the Seventh Circuit held that “debatable factual issues relating to the
defense of failure to exhaust administrative remedies” are not required to be decided by
a jury but are to be determined by the judge. Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 740-41(7th Cir.
2008). Thus, where failure to exhaust administrative remedies is raised as an affirmative
defense, the Court set forth the following recommendations:
The sequence to be followed in a case in which exhaustion is contested is
therefore as follows: (1) The district judge conducts a hearing on exhaustion
and permits whatever discovery relating to exhaustion he deems
Page 7 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #2191

appropriate. (2) If the judge determines that the prisoner did not exhaust
his administrative remedies, the judge will then determine whether (a) the
plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and so he must
go back and exhaust; (b) or, although he has no unexhausted administrative
remedies, the failure to exhaust was innocent (as where prison officials
prevent a prisoner from exhausting his remedies), and so he must be given
another chance to exhaust (provided that there exist remedies that he will
be permitted by the prison authorities to exhaust, so that he’s not just being
given a runaround); or (c) the failure to exhaust was the prisoner’s fault, in
which event the case is over. (3)If and when the judge determines that the
prisoner has properly exhausted his administrative remedies, the case will
proceed to pretrial discovery, and if necessary a trial, on the merits; and if
there is a jury trial, the jury will make all necessary findings of fact without
being bound by (or even informed of) any of the findings made by the
district judge in determining that the prisoner had exhausted his
administrative remedies.
Id. at 742.
A. Illinois Exhaustion Requirements
As an inmate confined within IDOC, Bentz was required to follow the regulations
contained in the IDOC’s Grievance Procedures for Offenders (“grievance procedures”)
to properly exhaust his claims. 20 Ill. Administrative Code §504.800 et seq. The grievance
procedures first require inmates to file their grievance with the counselor within 60 days
of the discovery of an incident. 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.810(a). The grievance form must:
contain factual details regarding each aspect of the offender’s complaint,
including what happened, when, where, and the name of each person who
is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in the complaint. This
provision does not preclude an offender from filing a grievance when the
names of individuals are not known, but the offender must include as much
descriptive information about the individual as possible.
20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.810(c). Grievances that are unable to be resolved through
routine channels are then sent to the grievance officer. 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.820(a).
The Grievance Officer will review the grievance and provide a written response to the
Page 8 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #2192

inmate. 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.830(a). “The Grievance Officer shall consider the
grievance and report his or her findings and recommendations in writing to the Chief
Administrative Officer within two months after receipt of the grievance, when reasonably
feasible under the circumstances.” 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.830(e). “The Chief
Administrative Officer shall review the findings and recommendation and advise the
offender of his or her decision in writing. Id.
If the inmate is not satisfied with the response from the Chief Administrative
Officer (“CAO”), he or she can file an appeal with the Director through the
Administrative Review Board. The grievance procedures specifically state, “[i]f, after
receiving the response of the Chief Administrative Officer, the offender still believes that
the problem, complaint or grievance has not been resolved to his or her satisfaction, he
or she may appeal in writing to the Director. The appeal must be received by the ARB
within 30 days after the date of the decision.” 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.850(a). The inmate
shall attach copies of the Grievance Officer’s report and the CAO’s decision to his appeal.
Id. “The Administrative Review Board shall submit to the Director a written report of its
findings and recommendations.” 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.850(d). “The Director shall
review the findings and recommendations of the Board and make a final determination
of the grievance within 6 months after receipt of the appealed grievance, when reasonably
feasible under the circumstances. The offender shall be sent a copy of the Director’s
decision.” 20 Ill. Admin. Code §504.850(e).
The grievance procedures do allow for an inmate to file an emergency grievance.
At the time that Bentz filed his grievance, in 2014, the procedures allowed an inmate to
Page 9 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #2193

forward an emergency grievance directly to the CAO. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.840(a)
(2014). If the CAO determines that “there is a substantial risk of imminent personal injury
or other serious or irreparable harm to the offender, the grievance shall be handled on an
emergency basis.” 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.840(b)(2014). The CAO shall then expedite
the review of the grievance and inform the inmate as to what action shall be taken. 20 Ill.
Admin. Code §504.840(c)(2014).
ANALYSIS
A. IDOC Defendants
The only grievances which are relevant to the claims in this case are the May 11, 2014
and May 16, 2014 grievances.
Bentz testified at the hearing that he filed the May 11 grievance but was told on
May 13 by Lieutenant Brookman that the grievance was thrown in the trash along with
other documents. He testified that the entire gallery was present on a lunch line
movement and heard Brookman’s statement. He pointed to an affidavit from another
inmate, John Anthony Reed (attached to his response), which also stated that Brookman
told Bentz during line movement to the chow hall that the grievance and a medical
request slip were filed in the trash can (Doc. 204, pp. 83-84).
Kent Brookman also testified at the evidentiary hearing. According to Brookman,
he was not working in the cellhouses at Menard in 2014. He was a member of the
adjustment committee and would not typically work in the cellhouses unless he was reassigned due to lack of staff. He does not recall if he was ever in Bentz’s cellhouse in May
2014, but he did not work in the cellhouse five days a week during that time period. He
Page 10 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #2194

was also not involved in the grievance process and would not have known when a
grievance was filed. Brookman also testified that grievances were picked up during the 3
to 11 shift, and he worked the 7 to 3 shift. He testified that he would not have thrown
grievances away because it was a serious offense.
Simply put, the Court finds Brookman’s testimony highly credible. Brookman
testified that he had nearly 27 years in IDOC. He also did not work the shift when
grievances were picked up, and he did not participate in the grievance process. Thus, he
was unlikely to even know that Bentz filed a grievance, let alone have access to it in order
to throw it away. The Court also finds Bentz’s testimony lacking in credibility. As
Defendants’ pointed out, this Court previously determined that Bentz falsified and then
lied about certificates of service in another of his cases, which undermines his credibility.
See Bentz v. McGlorn, Case No. 18-cv-18-NJR (Doc. 207). The Court also finds it unlikely
that Brookman, an officer with years of experience, would confess to the entire gallery in
the chow line that he threw grievances away when he could face serious consequences if
he interfered with the grievance process. Thus, the Court finds that Bentz did not submit
his grievance on May 12, 2014 as he testified, nor was the grievance destroyed.
Instead, it appears Bentz submitted the May 11, 2014 grievance on May 16, 2014
where it was received by the warden. The grievance appears on the emergency grievance
log and was received on May 21, 2014, deemed not an emergency, and returned to Bentz
on May 22, 2014 (Doc. 167-2, p. 19). Defendants argue that Bentz failed to exhaust this
grievance as well because he failed to appeal the grievance to the ARB. At the time Bentz
filed his grievance, however, the Illinois Administrative Code “did not expressly address
Page 11 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #2195

what should happen if the warden concludes that the grievance does not present an
emergency.” Williams v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 957 F.3d 828, 832 (7th Cir. 2020). The
regulations in effect at the time “did not provide for an appeal of such an order.” Id. There
was no requirement or mechanism to appeal the warden’s determination or to re-file the
grievance through the normal course. Id. at 834-35. See also Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d
690, 694 (7th Cir. 2005); Bentz v. Ghosh, 718 F App’x 413, 418 (7th Cir. 2017) (“Illinois rules
do not require him to appeal [the warden’s rejection of an emergency grievance] to the
Administrative Review Board.”); Cobian v. McLaughlin, 717 F App’x 605, 611 (7th Cir.
2017) (“When a warden has denied an Illinois prisoner’s request to consider his grievance
on an emergency basis, the prisoner has satisfied Illinois’s rules for exhausting emergency
grievances.”). Recent Seventh Circuit precedent makes clear that Bentz exhausted his
administrative remedies when the warden returned his May 16, 2014 emergency
grievance.
Defendants also make much of the fact that Bentz filed his 2014 case before
receiving a response to the May 16, 2014 grievance, but that argument lacks merit.
Exhaustion is, indeed, a precondition to filing suit, but the warden responded to his May
16, 2014 grievance long before he filed this case on July 27, 2016 (Doc. 1). Thus, the Court
finds that Bentz exhausted his May 16, 2014 grievance.
Bentz’s May 16, 2014 grievance covers a number of claims in this case including:
his civil conspiracy claim (Count 1), retaliation claim (Count 2), excessive force claim
(Count 3), failure to protect claim (Count 4), assault and battery claim (Count 5), and
negligence claim (Count 7). It also includes allegations related to his deliberate
Page 12 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #2196

indifference to medical claims in Count 6, at least as to the correctional officers.
The grievance does not, however, exhaust claims against Jeremy Butler. Although
his grievance alleges that he asked a number of correctional staff for medical care
following the assault, it does not allege that he had any issues with medical staff. In fact,
his grievance alleges that correctional officers denied his request to see medical staff after
the assault, but that Lieutenant Allen later got him medical staff/care at 8:45. The
grievance fails to identify the medical staff he saw and the grievance does not state that
he had any issue with the care he received. Nothing in the grievance would put the prison
on notice that Bentz had an issue with Jeremy Butler. Thus, the May 16 grievance does
not serve to exhaust the claims against him (Count 6).
The grievance also does not exhaust Bentz’s claims in Count 10, which alleges that
he was harassed and threatened in violation of the First and Eighth Amendments for
filing grievances and lawsuits after the assault. Nothing in the grievance puts the prison
on notice about these later threats which had not yet occurred. Only his January 24, 2016
grievance discussed retaliation and that was as to Billy Conway, who concedes the claim
is exhausted against him and has not filed a summary judgment motion. Although Bentz
argued at the hearing that there were a number of grievances filed before he filed this
case, there are no exhausted grievances in the record that include allegations in this
Count. Thus, Count 10 is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all of Defendants except
Billy Conway who acknowledges that Bentz exhausted his claim against him (Doc. 1674, pp. 176-77).

Page 13 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #2197

B. Jeremy Butler
As to Butler, he argues that the only grievance that could serve to address the
claims against him is Bentz’s October 2, 2014 grievance, because Butler left Menard in
December 2014. As previously discussed, the May 16, 2014 grievance does not include
any allegations against Butler. Although Bentz argued that he filed twenty to thirty
grievances about his medical care throughout the years, the only grievance filed during
the time period that Butler was at Menard is the October 2 grievance. The October 2, 2014
grievance was the subject of another one of Bentz’s lawsuits before this Court, Bentz v.
McGlorn, Case No. 18-cv-18-NJR. In that case, this Court adopted a Report and
Recommendation from Magistrate Judge Daly that found that the October 2 grievance
did not serve to exhaust against the medical defendants because it did not name or
describe the actions of any medical staff; instead it complained about being denied
medical call passes (Doc. 160, pp. 2, 12; Doc. 165). The Court adopts its previous findings
in McGlorn relevant to the October 2 grievance. The October 2 grievance alleges that he
was assaulted by Correctional Officer Lindenberg and Correctional Officer Smith on
August 29, 2014 and that he was not provided with medical care and his call passes were
not answered after the assault. The grievance does not name or describe any actions of
Butler. The October 2 grievance also does not address the May 11, 2014 assault and does
not mention any care provided by Butler after that assault. Accordingly, the claims
against Jeremy Butler are also DISMISSED without prejudice for Bentz’s failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies.

Page 14 of 15

Case 3:16-cv-00854-NJR Document 233 Filed 06/24/20 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #2198

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Jeremy Butler’s motion for summary judgment
(Docs. 159, 160) is GRANTED, and the claims against him are DISMISSED without
prejudice. The IDOC Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Docs. 166, 167) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. All of the claims were exhausted by Bentz’s
May 16, 2014 grievance except for the claims in Count 10. Count 10 is DISMISSED with
prejudice as to these defendants but will remain pending as to Billy Conway.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 24, 2020
____________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 15 of 15