HAYDEN v. NURSE PRACTIONER ALLEN et al
Filing
20
Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment: The defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. 13] is granted. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/14/2015. Copy sent via US Mail. (DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DAVID WAYNE HAYDEN, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NURSE PRACTIONER ALLEN, and
D. BUCKMASTER R.N.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:14-cv-02096-WTL-DML
Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
Plaintiff David W. Hayden Jr., an inmate at the New Castle Correctional Facility (“New
Castle”), filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his
civil rights when they denied him treatment for Hepatitis C. The defendants move for summary
judgment arguing that Mr. Hayden failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) before filing this
lawsuit.
Summary Judgment Standard
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). The party seeking summary judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying” designated evidence which
1
“demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986).
Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-movant may not rest upon mere
allegations. Instead, “[t]o successfully oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving
party must come forward with specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
Trask–Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir. 2008). “The non-movant
will successfully oppose summary judgment only when it presents definite, competent evidence to
rebut the motion.” Vukadinovich v. Bd. of Sch. Trs., 278 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Discussion
A. Undisputed Facts
At all times relevant to his Complaint, Mr. Hayden was confined by the Indiana
Department of Correction (“IDOC”) at New Castle Correctional Facility. Mr. Hayden alleges that
on or about November 18, 2014, he was diagnosed with a Hepatitis C infection. He claims that
since that date he has not received appropriate treatment for his Hepatitis C infection.
The IDOC has an Offender Grievance Process which is intended to permit inmates of the
IDOC to resolve concerns and complaints relating to their conditions of confinement prior to filing
suit in Court. All offenders are made aware of the Offender Grievance Process during orientation
and a copy of the Grievance Process is available in various locations within the prisons, including
the law library.
The Grievance Process consists of three steps. The first step requires the inmate to contact
staff to discuss the matter or incident subject to the grievance and seek informal resolution of his
2
complaint. If the offender is unable to obtain a resolution of the grievance informally through
officials at the facility, he or she may file a Level I Offender Grievance. This includes the
submission of a Level I Grievance form to the Executive Assistant of the facility or designee. The
Executive Assistant or designee has 15 working days from the date that the grievance is received
to complete an investigation and provide a response to an offender, unless the time has been
extended. If the offender does not receive a grievance response within the time frame noted, then
their appeal is due by the 25th day after the grievance was submitted. Once a Level I Grievance is
reviewed by facility officials, and if the problem has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the
offender, the offender may appeal the facility’s decision by submitting a Level II Grievance
Appeal. The Department of Corrections’ Offender Grievance Manager reviews the inmate’s appeal
and submits a response. Exhaustion of the grievance procedure requires pursuing a grievance to
the final step.
Mr. Hayden filed nine grievances between May 14, 2007 and February 27, 2015, while
incarcerated at New Castle. Mr. Hayden has not filed any grievances from April 23, 2014 to the
date of filing the present lawsuit on December 22, 2014. The grievance records reflect that Mr.
Hayden has not filed any grievances related to the claims arising in November 2014 alleged in his
Complaint.
B. Exhaustion
The defendants argue that Mr. Hayden failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies as required by the PLRA with respect to his claims against them.
The PLRA requires that a prisoner exhaust his available administrative remedies before
bringing a suit concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516,
3
524-25 (2002). “Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other
critical procedural rules 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, 90-91
(2006) (footnote omitted); 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)). Strict compliance is required with respect to exhaustion, and a prisoner must
properly follow the prescribed administrative procedures in order to exhaust his remedies. Dole v.
Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). The PLRA’s exhaustion requirement is not subject
to either waiver by a court or futility or inadequacy exceptions. Booth v. Churner, 532 U.S. 731,
741 n.6 (2001); McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 112 S. Ct. 1081 (1992) (“Where Congress
specifically mandates, exhaustion is required.”).
C. Discussion
The defendants have shown that Mr. Hayden filed no grievances related to his claim that
they denied him treatment for his Hepatitis C infection. Mr. Hayden does not dispute this, but
argues that the Grievance Process would have been inadequate to address his claims. He states, for
example, that he “could not realistically expect a particular outcome of a grievance.” Dkt. 17 at p.
11. But exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and not subject to futility or
inadequacy exceptions. See Booth, 532 U.S. at 741. In addition, the Health Care Request forms
allegedly submitted by Mr. Hayden are not grievance forms and they are not a substitute for the
Offender Grievance Process. It is therefore undisputed that Mr. Hayden failed to exhaust his
available administrative remedies as required by the PLRA before filing this lawsuit.
4
The consequence of these circumstances, in light of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is that Mr.
Hayden action should not have been brought and must now be dismissed without prejudice. See
Ford, 362 F.3d at 401 (“We therefore hold that all dismissals under § 1997e(a) should be without
prejudice.”).
Conclusion
The defendants’ motion for summary judgment [dkt. 13] is granted. Judgment consistent
with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________________
Date: 7/14/15
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution:
DAVID WAYNE HAYDEN, JR
962384
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
All Electronically Registered Counsel
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?