Dodson v. Levenhagen et al
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 7/9/2012. (kds)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
DARIUS K. DODSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
W. BOX, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:11-CV-391 RM
OPINION AND ORDER
Darius K. Dodson, a pro se prisoner, is proceeding on a claim that four correctional
officers at Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”) used excessive force against him
during a cell extraction on October 29, 2010. (DE 5.) The defendants move for summary
judgment on the ground that Mr. Dodson did not exhaust his administrative remedies
before filing suit. (DE 23.)
Summary judgment must be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P.
56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court
must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all
reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir.
2010). A party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion can’t rely merely
on allegations or denials in its own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the
court with the evidence she contends will prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat’l Sec. Agency,
Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010).
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) prohibits prisoners from bringing an
action in federal court with respect to prison conditions until “such administrative
remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The failure to exhaust is an
affirmative defense on which the defendant bears the burden of proof. Dole v. Chandler,
438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). “To exhaust remedies, a prisoner must file complaints and
appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules require.” Pozo v.
McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). “[U]nless the prisoner completes the
administrative process by following the rules the state has established for that process,
exhaustion has not occurred.” Id. at 1023.
Inmates are only required to exhaust administrative remedies that are “available.”
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 102 (2006). The availability of a remedy is not a matter of
what appears “on paper,” but rather whether the process was in actuality available for the
prisoner to pursue. Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684. Thus, when prison staff prevent an
inmate from using the administrative process, such as by failing to provide him with the
necessary forms, administrative remedies are not considered to be “available.” Id. In
essence, “[p]rison officials may not take unfair advantage of the exhaustion requirement
. . . and a remedy becomes ‘unavailable’ if prison employees do not respond to a properly
filed grievance or otherwise use affirmative misconduct to prevent a prisoner from
exhausting.” Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d at 809.
2
The undisputed facts in the summary judgment record show that Mr. Dodson has
been housed at Westville since June 29, 2010. (DE 23-1, Bean Aff. ¶ 6.) In accordance with
Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) policy, Westville has a grievance process
under which an inmate can grieve a broad range of issues, including incidents involving
the alleged use of excessive force. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) The process’s first step requires the inmate
to “attempt[] to resolve his complaint informally by contacting an appropriate staff
member within five (5) working days of the incident complained.” (Id. ¶ 9.) If the informal
complaint isn’t resolved in a satisfactory manner, the inmate can proceed to the formal
grievance process. (Id. ¶ 10.) The formal grievance process involves two steps: the inmate
must file a written grievance with the facility’s executive assistant and, if dissatisfied with
the response, an appeal to IDOC’s grievance manager. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12.) A formal grievance
must be filed within 20 business days of the event that is the subject of the grievance. (Id.
¶ 11.)
A record is kept of all grievances, and those records show that Mr. Dodson filed a
grievance on December 20, 2010, complaining that he had been subjected to excessive force
on October 29, 2010. (Id. ¶ 16; DE 23-2.) The grievance was rejected as untimely because it
was filed outside the 20-day window. (DE 23-1, Bean Aff.¶¶ 17-18.) Based on these facts,
the defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment. (DE 24, 35.)
Mr. Dodson doesn’t dispute that his grievance was rejected as untimely, but he
claims that the prison staff’s actions prevented him from filing a timely grievance. (DE 32,
34.) He says that immediately after the cell extraction, he was placed in a “strip cell” for
3
more than two weeks, during which time he had nothing with him except “underwear, [a]
blanket, and [a] mattress.” (Id.) . (DE 34, Dodson Decl. ¶ 5.) He had no paper or pens, nor
did he have access to the necessary grievance forms. (Id.) He says he tried to get an
informal grievance form from his counselor through the institutional mail, but couldn’t
obtain one. (Id.)
Mr. Dodson was released from the strip cell on November 15, 2010, and claims he
put in another request for the necessary form but didn’t receive it until November 24, 2010.
(Id.) He asserts that under the grievance rules he was required to wait ten business days
for a response; after receiving no response he requested a formal grievance form on
December 8, 2010. (Id. ¶ 9.) He asserts that he had to wait several more days for the
necessary form, and as soon as he received it he completed it and put it in his outgoing
mail bag on December 20, 2010. (Id.)
He further claims that he attached a slip of paper to his grievance explaining why
it wasn’t filed within the allotted 20 days. (Id. ¶ 10.) He requested that “if there was a
problem to let me file a belated grievance . . . pursuant to DOC policy 00-02-301, Section
XV.” (Id.) He claims that when Mr. Bean rejected his grievance as untimely, there was no
mention of his request. (Id.) He asserts that he wanted to appeal Mr. Bean’s decision, but
neither Mr. Bean nor his counselor would provide him with the necessary form, so he had
no further remedies. (Id. ¶ 11.) Under these circumstances, Mr. Dodson argues that he
should be excused from failing to exhaust. (DE 34.)
4
In their reply, the defendants don’t dispute Mr. Dodson’s assertions. (DE 35.) Nor
do they submit a complete copy of the grievance policy for this court to determine whether
Mr. Dodson was required to obtain a form to make an informal grievance request, or
whether he had to wait ten business days for a response before he could proceed to the next
step, as he asserts. Instead, the defendants argue that even if Mr. Dodson wasn’t given the
appropriate forms until after the 20 days expired, he should have sought leave to file an
untimely grievance.1 (DE 35 at 3-4.) The defendants point to a portion of the grievance
policy requiring such a request to be made “on the grievance form or an extra sheet of
paper submitted with that form.” (DE 35 at 4; DE 35-2.) They argue that Mr. Dodson didn’t
comply with this requirement because there is nothing on his grievance form explaining
why it was untimely or requesting leave to be excused from the deadline. (DE 35 at 3-4.)
As already stated, Mr. Dodson asserts that he made this request on a separate piece of
paper submitted along with his grievance. (DE 34, Dodson Decl. ¶ 10.) The defendants
don’t dispute that Mr. Dodson took this step, which comports with the grievance policy
they have submitted. (See DE 35-2.)
While not disputing Mr. Dodson’s own assertions, the defendants take issue with
a declaration he submitted from a fellow inmate which they claim is so rife with problems
that it should be stricken in its entirety. (DE 35 at 1-3; see also DE 34, Smith Decl.) The court
agrees that portions of this declaration are improper because they contain legal argument
1
The grievance policy states that “an offender who does not follow the time limits . . . should expect
to have his grievance or appeal denied for that reason unless he or she is able to show good cause.” (DE 35-2
at 2.) The excerpt of the policy provided does not define good cause or otherwise explain the circumstances
under which an extension will be granted. (See id.)
5
or conclusory allegations rather than factual assertions. (Id. ¶¶ 9-10.) Still, other parts of
the declaration are based on the inmate’s personal experience with the grievance process
at Westville, including his assertion that grievance forms can only be obtained from a
counselor through a request made by institutional mail; that inmates aren’t allowed to
write grievances on their own paper; that the institutional mail system only runs on
Mondays through Fridays, excluding holidays; and that inmates in strip cells aren’t
allowed to have pens, papers (including grievance forms), or any other personal property.
(DE 34, Smith Decl. ¶¶ 3-8.) There is nothing inherently implausible or otherwise improper
about these assertions. See Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 772 (7th Cir. 2003) (affidavit
submitted in response to motion for summary judgment is proper if it is based on personal
knowledge, which may include reasonable inferences, as long as those inferences are
grounded in observation or other first-hand personal experience).
Even if the court were to strike the declaration in its entirety as the defendants
request, summary judgment would not be appropriate. Mr. Dodson makes undisputed
assertions that he repeatedly requested the necessary forms to initiate the grievance process
and prison staff dragged their feet each step of the way, making it impossible for him to
comply with the 20-day deadline. (DE 34, Dodson Decl. ¶¶ 6-9.) He further attests that he
made a proper request to file a belated grievance, but his grievance was nevertheless
rejected as untimely without any explanation or acknowledgment of his request. (Id. ¶ 10.)
The defendants carry the burden of proving that they are entitled to summary
judgment on exhaustion grounds, and based on the record they have failed to do so. See
6
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d at 809. Under the facts Mr. Dodson sets forth, the grievance
process was not “available” to Mr. Dodson and he can’t be faulted for failing to file a timely
grievance. Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d at 684-85 (summary judgment was not appropriate when
the plaintiff submitted evidence that he was denied forms and intimidated into not
pursuing a formal grievance); Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 656 (7th Cir. 2004) (reversing
summary judgment where the plaintiff submitted evidence that he was not given the
proper forms needed to exhaust). Accordingly, the court will deny the motion for summary
judgment.
For these reasons, the motion for summary judgment (DE 23) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: July 9 , 2012.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court
cc: D. Dodson
C. Gilchrist/T. Renfro, Jr.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?