LaCroix v. Neal et al
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Officer Webb's summary judgment motion 13 ; and DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Officer Tonda Webb and against Terry LaCroix and to close this case. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 5/9/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ash)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
TERRY LACROIX,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:23-cv-364-JD-MGG
RON NEAL et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Terry LaCroix, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case against
Officer Tonda Webb “in her personal capacity for monetary damages for allowing other
inmates to contaminate his food with their spit on or about May 3, 2021, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment[.]” ECF 6 at 5-6. On December 20, 2023, Officer Webb filed a
motion for summary judgment, arguing Mr. LaCroix didn’t exhaust his administrative
remedies before filing this lawsuit. ECF 13. With the motion, Officer Webb provided Mr.
LaCroix the notice required by N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(f). ECF 16. Attached to the notice was
a copy of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Northern District of Indiana Local Rule
56-1.
Pursuant to Local Rule 56-1(b), a party opposing a summary judgment motion
must, within 28 days after the movant serves the motion, separately file (1) a response
brief; and (2) a response to statement of material facts, which includes a citation to
evidence supporting each dispute of fact. The court extended Mr. LaCroix’s deadline
until April 4, 2024, but this deadline passed over a month ago and Mr. LaCroix hasn’t
responded. ECF 22. The court will now rule on Officer Webb’s summary judgment
motion.
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.”
2
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.
Officer Webb provides an affidavit from the Grievance Specialist at Indiana State
Prison (ISP) and Mr. LaCroix’s grievance records.1 During all relevant times, an Offender
Grievance Process was in place at ISP. ECF 14-1 at 2. The Offender Grievance Process
requires offenders to complete three steps before filing a lawsuit: (1) a formal attempt at
resolution; (2) a Level I appeal to the warden; and (3) a Level II appeal to the Department
Grievance Manager. Id.; ECF 14-2 at 3. If an inmate submits a grievance which is rejected
by the grievance office, “[i]t shall be the responsibility of the offender to make the
necessary revisions to the grievance form and to return the revised form to the Offender
Grievance Specialist within five (5) business days from the date that it is returned to the
offender.” ECF 14-2 at 10.
Mr. LaCroix submitted three potentially relevant grievances, each of which was
rejected by the grievance office. First, on May 12, 2021, Mr. LaCroix submitted a grievance
stating he’d been tortured in various ways by numerous gangs and correctional officers
over the past 29 months. ECF 14-1 at 5; ECF 14-4 at 2. For relief he requested he be
transferred to a different prison. Id. On June 1, 2021, the grievance office rejected this
grievance because it complained of multiple issues, was unintelligible, and sought
Because Mr. LaCroix has not responded to Officer Webb’s summary judgment motion, the court
accepts the Grievance Specialist’s attestations and the contents of LaCroix’s grievance records as
undisputed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (“If a party . . . fails to properly address another party’s
assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may . . . consider the fact undisputed for
purposes of the motion”).
1
3
inappropriate relief. ECF 14-1 at 5; ECF 14-4 at 1. Mr. LaCroix did not revise and resubmit
this grievance. ECF 14-1 at 5.
Second, on May 13, 2021, Mr. LaCroix submitted a grievance alleging Officer Webb
had antagonized him, threatened him with mace, and allowed other inmates to
contaminate his food trays over the past two years. ECF 14-1 at 6; ECF 14-5 at 2. He
requested as relief that Officer Webb be punished and lose her job. Id. On June 1, 2021,
the grievance office rejected this grievance because it complained of numerous issues,
was unintelligible, and sought inappropriate relief. ECF 14-1 at 6; ECF 14-5 at 1. Mr.
LaCroix did not revise and resubmit this grievance. ECF 14-1 at 6.
Third, on May 31, 2021, Mr. LaCroix submitted a grievance alleging that on May
3, 2021, Officer Wheeler used excessive force against him and that Officer Webb allowed
inmates to contaminate his food tray. ECF 14-1 at 6; ECF 14-6 at 2. On June 21, 2021, the
grievance office rejected this grievance as untimely because it was submitted more than
ten business days after the incident. ECF 14-1 at 7; ECF 14-6 at 1. Mr. LaCroix did not
revise and resubmit this grievance to request a time limit extension, nor did he submit
any other relevant grievances. ECF 14-1 at 7.
Here, Officer Webb has met her burden to show Mr. LaCroix didn’t exhaust his
available administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. Specifically, it is undisputed
Mr. LaCroix submitted three potentially relevant grievances, but each grievance was
properly rejected by the grievance office, and Mr. LaCroix did not revise and resubmit
the grievances, despite having an opportunity to do so. Mr. LaCroix provides no evidence
the grievances were improperly rejected or that his administrative remedies were in any
4
way unavailable. Because the undisputed facts show Mr. LaCroix had available
administrative remedies he didn’t exhaust before filing this lawsuit, summary judgment
is warranted in favor of Officer Webb.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Officer Webb’s summary judgment motion (ECF 13); and
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to enter judgment in favor of Officer Tonda Webb and
against Terry LaCroix and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
May 9, 2024
s/ Damon R. Leichty
Judge, United States District Court
5
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?