Davis v. Chester Mental Health Center et al

Filing 54

ORDER: Defendant Harper's Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion (Doc. 46 ) is GRANTED and the claim against Harper is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly at the close of the case. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 8/10/2020. (bps)

Case 3:18-cv-01119-SMY Document 54 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #244

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

CHRISTOPHER DAVIS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSEPH HARPER, and
CHESTER DIETARY STAFF,
Defendants.

Case No. 18−cv–1119−SMY

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Plaintiff Christopher Davis, formerly an inmate within the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for events that allegedly
occurred at while he was in custody at Chester Mental Health Center (“Chester”). Now before the
Court is Defendant Harper’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion. (Doc.
46). 1 For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), “[i]f a party fails ... to properly address
another party’s assertion of fact” the Court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the
motion.” Relatedly, under Local Rule 7.1(c), a party’s “[f]ailure to timely file a response to a
motion may, in the Court’s discretion, be considered an admission of the merits of the motion.”
Consistent with these Rules, the Court deems the facts asserted in Harper’s motion undisputed and

1

On June 26, 2020, the undersigned issued a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 Notice to Plaintiff and allowed him
up to and including July 28, 2020 to respond to the Motion. (Doc. 50). As of this date, Plaintiff has not responded.

1

Case 3:18-cv-01119-SMY Document 54 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #245

Plaintiff’s failure to respond as an admission of the merits of Defendant Harper’s motion. See,
Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003); Flynn v. Sandahl, 58 F.3d 283, 288 (7th Cir.
1995) (noting that a failure to respond constitutes an admission that there are no undisputed
material facts).
Lawsuits filed by inmates are governed by the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Pursuant to the Act, “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. This includes individuals confined in a mental health treatment
facility. Kalinowski v. Bond, 358 F.3d 978, 979 (7th Cir. 2004). “To 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). The Seventh Circuit requires
strict adherence to the PLRA’s exhaustion requirement – exhaustion must occur before suit is filed.
See, e.g., Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting that “[t]his circuit has taken
a strict compliance approach to exhaustion”); Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004).
The following claim survived the Court’s screening of the Complaint in this case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (Doc. 17): Count 1 – Harper and Chester Dietary Staff violated Plaintiff’s
First Amendment rights when they substantially burdened his practice of religion when they
ignored his documented allergies in preparing food for Ramadan and associated feasts. Plaintiff
also submitted an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Report with his Complaint which indicates
that Harper was included in a series of e-mails regarding Plaintiff’s carrot allergies. (Doc. 1, p 1316). However, there is no indication in that Report that Harper was involved in Plaintiff receiving

2

Case 3:18-cv-01119-SMY Document 54 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #246

carrots. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to
Harper.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of exhaustion
filed by Defendant Harper (Doc. 46) is GRANTED and the claim against Harper is DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly at the close
of the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 10, 2020

s/ STACI M. YANDLE
U.S. District Judge

3