Brady v. Coe et al

Filing 66

ORDER ADOPTING 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Dr. Coe; FINDING AS MOOT 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; DENYING 65 MOTION for Reconsideration re 54 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Defendants Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Coe are DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly on 1/3/2020. (nmf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
HARLEY M. BRADY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
DR. COE and DR. AHMED,
Defendants.

Case No.

17-cv-1202-RJD

ORDER
DALY, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Harley Brady filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging his
constitutional rights were violated while he was incarcerated at Lawrence Correctional Center.
The undersigned filed a Report and Recommendation on October 15, 2019 (Doc. 54),
recommending the Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative
Remedies filed by Defendant Dr. Coe be granted, that the Motion for Summary Judgment for
Plaintiff’s Failure to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies filed by Dr. Ahmed be found moot,
and that Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Coe be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation on October 18, 2019 (Doc. 57), and was granted leave to file
additional objections out-of-time (Doc. 65).
On December 9, 2019, with the Report and Recommendation pending, all parties
consented to have a Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case. The case was referred to
the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73.
In light of the final consent of the parties and full referral of this matter to the undersigned, the
Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. Accordingly, the
Page 1 of 3

Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies filed by
Defendant Dr. Coe (Doc. 41) is GRANTED; the Motion for Summary Judgment for Plaintiff’s
Failure to Exhaust His Administrative Remedies filed by Defendant Dr. Ahmed is FOUND AS
MOOT (Doc. 44); and Defendants Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Coe are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
The Court, however, construes and considers Plaintiff’s objections as motions to
reconsider and sets forth its discussion of the objections below.
First, Plaintiff indicates he seeks to dismiss Dr. Ahmed with prejudice, rather than without
prejudice. Because dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is
appropriate, the Court declines to reconsider Dr. Ahmed’s dismissal and he remains dismissed
without prejudice.
Next, Plaintiff contends the undersigned’s decision as to Dr. Coe was based on Plaintiff’s
failure to perform “extra steps” that he was not obligated to take. Although not cited by Plaintiff,
his argument appears to rely on the Seventh Circuit’s discussion in Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d
690 (7th Cir. 2005). The Court finds Thornton1 to be distinguishable from the facts in this case.
Specifically, in Thornton, although the Court articulated that “[t]here is nothing in the current
regulatory text … that requires an inmate to file a new grievance after learning only that it will not
be considered on an emergency basis”, the Court noted that the plaintiff in Thornton had not been
provided any further instruction by the prison system, and the defendants did not present any
evidence as to what the relevant rules were in the prison system in such circumstance.
1

See

The Court further notes that in Thornton, summary judgment in favor of the defendants was
reversed because the plaintiff had received the relief he requested in his grievances and, therefore,
he was not required to appeal to higher channels in the process. Thus, discussion concerning what
actions are required by the Illinois Administrative Code to exhaust an emergency grievance is
dicta.
Page 2 of 3

Thornton, 428 F.3d at 692-95. In this instance, Plaintiff was given clear instructions on how to
proceed and failed to follow these instructions. The Court reiterates that Plaintiff was required to
follow the prison’s rules to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. Pozo v. McCaughtry,
286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002).

The Court finds it inapposite that Plaintiff could refuse to

follow the specific instructions of the warden and ARB and circumvent the intent and purpose of
the PLRA to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Moreover, although this grievance mentions Dr. Coe and his refusal to address Plaintiff’s
knee condition, Plaintiff does not complain about Dr. Coe’s denial of a low bunk permit, the issue
central to his claim in this lawsuit. Indeed, Plaintiff makes no mention of a low bunk permit
whatsoever in this grievance. As such, Plaintiff’s grievance failed to set forth sufficient factual
details of Plaintiff’s complaint, as required by the Illinois Administrative Code. 20 ILCS §
504.810(c).

For this reason, prison officials did not have a “fair opportunity” to address

Plaintiff’s complaint concerning the low bunk permit, Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 713 (7th Cir.
2011), and the grievance did not alert “the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is
sought,” Westefer v. Snyder, 422 F.3d 570, 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted), which is the
purpose of the PLRA.
For these reasons, the Court finds no basis on which to reconsider its previous decision and
Plaintiff’s Motions to Reconsider are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 3, 2020
s/ Reona J. Daly
Hon. Reona J. Daly
United States Magistrate Judge
Page 3 of 3