Croom v. Lashbrook et al

Filing 80

ORDER finding as moot 36 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 74 Motion to Supplement; and adopting 75 Report and Recommendations. See Order for details. The Court ADOP TS the Report, GRANTS the motion for summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion, dismisses without prejudice plaintiff's cause of action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Further, the Court denies as moot the motion to dismiss. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment reflecting the same. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 12/10/2018. (klh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER CROOM,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK,
and JOHN BALDWIN,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-0612-DRH
MEMORANDUM and ORDER

HERNDON, District Judge:
Pending

before

the

Court

is

an

October

22,

2018

Report

and

Recommendation (“the Report”) issued by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams
(Doc. 75).

Magistrate Judge Williams recommends that the Court grant

defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as to both plaintiff’s class and individual
claims against Lashbrook and Baldwin and deny as moot the motion to dismiss.
The parties were allowed time to file objections to the Report. 1 As of this date, no
objections have been filed to the Report. Based on the applicable law, the record
and the following, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety.

1 Originally, objections to the Report were due on or before November 5, 2018 (Doc. 75). On
October 31, 2018, the Court allowed Croom’s attorney Christian G. Montroy to withdraw from the
case and extended the time for Croom to file objections up to and including December 5, 2018
(Doc. 79).

Page 1 of 4

On June 9, 2017, plaintiff Christopher Croom brought this pro se action for
deprivations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 at the Menard
Correctional Center (Doc. 1).

On June 14, 2017, the Court screened Croom’s

amended complaint and severed the case into 4 separate cases leaving the claims
contained in Count 1 as the only claim in this cause of action (Doc. 4). Thereafter
on July 7, 2017, the Court dismissed without prejudice Croom’s Count 1 for failure
to state a clam and allowed Croom 30 days to file an amended complaint (Doc. 9).
On August 24, 2017, Croom filed the amended complaint (Doc. 12). The Amended
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights were violated when he was
confined in a 36 square foot cell on February 13, 2017. (Doc. 12, p. 5). The mattress
had a urine stain on it, and Plaintiff was deprived of cleaning supplies, hygiene
products, and showers for 18 days. (Doc. 12, pp. 5-6). He did not receive clothes
or his eye glasses for 10 days. (Doc. 12, p. 5). Plaintiff asked correctional officers
for hygiene products, but they told him to “ask your homeboys” or “don’t come to
seg.” Id. Plaintiff alleges that the cell was too small to exercise in because the
majority of the space is taken up by the furniture. (Doc. 2, p. 6). Subsequently on
November 6, 2017, the Court screened Croom’s amended complaint and found the
following claim survived review:
Count 1 – Lashbrook and Rodely were deliberately indifferent to the
unconstitutional conditions of confinement that Plaintiff was
subjected to in violation of the Eighth Amendment when they refused
to address his complaints regarding cell size, lack of cleaning
supplies, lack of hygiene products, inadequate showers, and lack of
exercise.
Page 2 of 4

(Doc. 13, p. 4). On March 2, 2018, Croom, by and through retained counsel
Christian Montroy, filed a second amended class action complaint against
Jacqueline Lashbrook and John R. Baldwin for unconstitutional conditions of
confinement at Menard Correctional Center’s North I and II buildings (Doc. 28).
Specifically, Count 1 is a class action claim for injunctive relief, medical monitoring
and punitive damages and Count 2 is an individual claim for unconstitutional
conditions of confinement that he was allegedly subjected to while housed in the
segregation unit in North 1.
On May 17, 2018, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies (Docs. 42).
Croom filed his opposition (Doc. 55).

On July 19, 2018,

On September 27, 2018 and October 9,

2018, Magistrate Judge Williams held Pavey 2 hearings on the motion for summary
judgment and to assess the credibility of the conflicting accounts about Croom’s
use of the grievance process (Docs. 68 & 73). On October 22, 2018, Magistrate
Judge Williams issued a Report recommending that the Court grant the motion for
summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and dismiss
without prejudice plaintiff’s claims (Doc. 75). As of this date, Croom, even with
the extension of time, has not filed objections to the Report. The period in which
to file objections has expired.

Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this

2 Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008)(indicating that a judge, not a jury should resolve
initial disputes about exhaustion in prisoner cases, and setting forth the procedures to be followed
in doing so).

Page 3 of 4

Court need not conduct de novo review.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52

(1985).
Based on the reasons outlined in the Report, the Court ADOPTS the Report
in its entirety (Doc. 75), GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary judgment on
the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies (Doc. 42) and DENIES as moot
defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. 36).

The Court DISMISSES without

prejudice Croom’s claims against defendants for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment
reflecting the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.12.10
12:31:27 -06'00'
United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4