Marshall v. Croto et al

Filing 51

OPINION AND ORDER: The defendants' motion for summary judgment 33 is DENIED. Signed by Senior Judge James T Moody on 9/24/24. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SHAWN MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-12-JTM-AZ

CROTO and HYATT,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
Shawn Marshall, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case “against
Chaplin Croto and Warden Hyatt in their individual capacities for nominal and
punitive damages for preventing him from being served meals before sunrise and after
sunset so he could celebrate Ramadhan in April 2022 in violation of the First
Amendment[.]” (DE # 20 at 3.) The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing Marshall didn’t exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. (DE #
33.) Marshall filed a response and the defendants filed a reply. (DE ## 40, 43.) The
summary judgment motion is now fully briefed and ripe for ruling.
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.” Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the
evidence is such that a reasonable [factfinder] could [find] 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. Heft v.
Moore, 351 F.3d 278, 282 (7th Cir. 2003). A party opposing a properly supported
summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own
pleading but 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).
Prisoners are prohibited 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). “[A] suit filed by a prisoner before administrative remedies have
been exhausted must be dismissed; the district court lacks discretion to resolve the
claim on the merits, even if the prisoner exhausts intra-prison remedies before
judgment.” Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999). “Failure to
exhaust is an affirmative defense that a defendant has the burden of proving.” King v.
McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 893 (7th Cir. 2015).
The law takes a “strict compliance approach to exhaustion.” Lockett v. Bonson, 937
F.3d 1016, 1025 (7th Cir. 2019). To exhaust remedies, “a prisoner must file complaints
and appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules require.” Id.
But 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 (7th Cir. 2006). When prison staff
hinder an inmate’s ability to use the administrative process, administrative remedies
are not considered “available.” Id.
2

The defendants argue Marshall didn’t exhaust his administrative remedies
before filing this lawsuit because he never submitted any relevant grievance. (DE # 34
at 4-6.) They provide an attestation from the Grievance Specialist that he never received
any relevant grievance from Marshall related to his claim in this lawsuit. (DE # 33-1 at
6.)
Marshall concedes he never fully exhausted any relevant grievance. The court
therefore accepts that as undisputed. Instead, he argues his administrative remedies
were unavailable because he submitted relevant grievances but never received any
receipt or response from the grievance office. (DE # 40 at 1-2.) Specifically, he provides
evidence he submitted a grievance on April 7, 2022, complaining he had been taken off
the Ramadhan list. (DE # 40-1 at 1.) He never received any receipt or response from the
grievance office. (DE # 40 at 1.) On April 20, 2022, Marshall submitted a new grievance
complaining he had not received any receipt or response to his April 7 grievance. (DE #
40-1 at 3.) Marshall never received any receipt or response to his April 20 grievance. (DE
# 40 at 2.) On April 27, 2022, Marshall submitted a “Request for Interview” form to the
Grievance Specialist, informing him he submitted two grievances but never received
any receipt or response. (DE # 40-1 at 2.) Marshall never received any response to his
Request for Interview form. (DE # 40 at 2.)
Here, Marshall has provided undisputed evidence he exhausted all remedies that
were available to him. Specifically, it is undisputed he submitted two grievances
complaining of his removal from the Ramadhan list, but never received any receipt or
response from the grievance office. The Offender Grievance Process provides that, if an
3

inmate submits a grievance and “does not receive either a receipt or a rejected form
from the Offender Grievance Specialist within ten (10) business days of submitting it,
the offender shall notify the Offender Grievance Specialist of that fact (retaining a copy
of the notice) and the Offender Grievance Specialist shall investigate the matter and
respond to the offender’s notification within ten (10) business days.” (DE # 33-2 at 9.)
Marshall complied with this requirement by submitting a second grievance and a
Request for Interview form to the Grievance Specialist notifying him of the lack of
response to his grievance, but still he received no response. This left him without any
further available remedies to exhaust.
In their reply, the defendants argue that, even assuming Marshall submitted
these grievances and received no receipt or response from the grievance office, he still
had available remedies he didn’t exhaust because the grievance process required him to
appeal his unanswered grievances as if they had been denied. (DE # 43 at 4-5.)
However, the Offender Grievance Process only provides that, “If the offender receives
no grievance response within twenty (20) business days of the Offender Grievance
Specialist’s receipt of the grievance, the offender may appeal as though the grievance had
been denied.” (DE # 33-2 at 12 (emphasis added)). Here, because the Grievance
Specialist never issued any receipt for either of Marshall’s grievances, there is no
evidence the grievance process allowed Marshall to appeal these grievances as if they
had been denied.
Accordingly, because the undisputed facts show Marshall exhausted all remedies
available to him, the defendants have not met their burden to show Marshall had
4

available administrative remedies he didn’t exhaust. For these reasons, the defendants’
motion for summary judgment (DE # 33) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Date: September 24, 2024

s/James T. Moody
.
JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5