COLE v. INDIANA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
Filing
28
Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21 ) is GRANTED and the matter is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. **SEE ORDER** Copy Mailed. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 2/19/2015. (MGG) Modified on 2/20/2015 (MGG).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MAURICE COLE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TRENH, COLEMAN, T. EDMONDS,
)
)
)
) No. 1:14-cv-0318-TWP-DKL
)
)
)
Defendants.
Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21) filed by
Defendants Trenh (“Sgt. Trenh”), Coleman (“Officer Coleman”), and T. Edmonds (“Officer
Edmonds”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff Maurice Cole (“Mr. Cole”), an inmate at the
Westville Correctional Facility, brings this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the
Defendants assaulted him. Defendants assert that this action should be dismissed because Mr. Cole
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing this action as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (“PLRA”). This affirmative defense must be resolved
before reaching the merits of Mr. Cole’s claims. Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742 (7th Cir.
2008).
I. Standard of Review
Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A “material fact” is one that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine only if a reasonable jury could find
for the non-moving party. Id. The Court views the facts in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the non-movant’s favor. Ault v. Speicher,
634 F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
On a motion for summary judgment, the burden rests with the moving party to demonstrate
“that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). After the moving party demonstrates the absence of a genuine
issue for trial, the responsibility shifts to the non-movant to “go beyond the pleadings” and point
to evidence of a genuine factual dispute precluding summary judgment. Id. at 322-23. “If the nonmovant does not come forward with evidence that would reasonably permit the finder of fact to
find in h[is] favor on a material question, then the court must enter summary judgment against
h[im].” Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994)(citing Matsushita
Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 585-87 (1986).
II. Discussion
A. Undisputed Facts
Mr. Cole filed an Amended Complaint on September 2, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging the Defendants assaulted him while they were escorting him to segregation on
January 16, 2014. Mr. Cole submitted three informal grievances on January 27, 2014, and one on
January 28, 2007, complaining that Sgt. Trenh and Officer Coleman rammed his head and face
into the wall multiple times while escorting him to segregation, [Filing No. 24-1, at ECF p. 1;
Filing No. 24-2], that Officer Edmonds kicked Mr. Cole’s legs causing him to fall, [Filing No. 243 at ECF p. 1], and that his property was missing after he was placed in segregation. [Filing No.
24-4 at ECF p. 1], respectively.
The Westville Correctional Facility has a grievance procedure. The procedure is set forth
in the Indiana Department of Correction Manual of Policies and Procedures, Offender Grievance
Process, No. 00-02-301. Upon arrival to the facility, each inmate is advised of the offender
grievance process during orientation. [Filing No. 21-2, at ECF p. 7]. Each inmate is also provided
with a copy of the Offender Orientation Handbook which includes the offender grievance process.
[Filing No. 21-2, at ECF p. 7].
According to this Manual, the grievance process includes an informal complaint, a formal
complaint, and a formal appeal. [Filing No. 21-2, at ECF p. 5]. All of these steps must be completed
for an inmate to be considered as having exhausted his administrative remedies. The actions of
individual staff are matters subject to the grievance process. [Filing No. 21-2, at ECF p. 5].
An informal complaint must be filed within 5 working days from the date of the incident
unless the offender can provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. [Filing No. 21-2, at ECF p.
15]. Failure of the offender to attempt to resolve the complaint informally may result in a grievance
form being rejected. Here, the incident of excessive force that is the subject of Mr. Cole’s
complaint occurred on January 16, 2014. [Filing No. 9, at ECF p. 1].
B. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The PLRA requires that a prisoner exhaust his available administrative remedies before
bringing a suit concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(a). See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S.
516, 524-25 (2002). “[T]he PLRA’s exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison
life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege
excessive force or some other wrong.” Id. at 532 (citation omitted). The exhaustion requirement
of the PLRA is one of “proper exhaustion” because “no adjudicative system can function
effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings.” Woodford
v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006). This means that the prisoner plaintiff must have completed “the
administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, including
deadlines, as a precondition to bringing suit in federal court.” Id. at 84; see also Dale v. Lappin,
376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004)(“In order to properly exhaust, a prisoner must submit inmate
complaints and appeals ‘in the place, and at the time, the prison's administrative rules
require.’”)(quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Defendants have shown that Mr. Cole did not exhaust his available administrative remedies
as required by the PLRA. Mr. Cole submitted an informal grievance in this matter, however it was
not timely because it was not filed within five working days. The incidents of excessive force that
is the subject of Mr. Cole’s Amended Complaint all occurred on January 16, 2014. [Filing No. 9,
at ECF p. 1]. Mr. Cole submitted his informal grievances on January 27 and 28, 2014, eleven and
twelve days later.
In his response in opposition to summary judgment, Mr. Cole argues that he was thwarted
in his attempt to grieve the incident because no one responded to his complaint at the informal
level. [Filing No. 24, at ECF p. 1-2]. He attached as exhibits to his response in opposition informal
grievance forms that were submitted on January 27 and 28, 2014, for incidents that all occurred on
January 16, 2014. [Filing No. 24-1, at ECF p. 1; Filing No. 24-2; Filing No. 24-3 at ECF p. 1;
Filing No. 24-4 at ECF p. 1]. Mr. Cole does not argue, or even address the defendants’ argument
that the informal grievance forms were not timely submitted, and does not provide any explanation
for the delay. The informal grievance forms Mr. Cole submitted reveal they were not submitted
within the five day time frame required by the offender grievance process.
The Seventh Circuit has taken a “strict compliance approach to exhaustion.” Dole v.
Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). For an offender to exhaust properly, he must comply
with a prison’s deadlines and other procedural rules. Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91. It is not enough
that Mr. Cole submitted informal grievance forms that he argues were ignored. He must have
submitted them within the five day time frame set out in the offender grievance process. The
language of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) is clear: “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 are available are
exhausted.” Mr. Cole failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies with regard to his
claim in this case. The consequence of these circumstances, in light of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is
that Mr. Cole’s claims should not have been brought and must now be dismissed without prejudice.
See Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1024 (explaining that “a prisoner who does not properly take each step
within the administrative process has failed to exhaust state remedies, and thus is foreclosed by §
1997e(a) from litigating”); Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004)(“We therefore hold
that all dismissals under § 1997e(a) should be without prejudice.”).
III. Conclusion
The defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 21) is GRANTED and the matter
is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: ____2/19/2015_________
Distribution:
Maurice Cole, # 113947
Westville Correctional Facility
Electronic Service Participant
Court Only
Electronically registered counsel
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?