DOUGLAS v. HOBSON et al
Filing
93
Entry Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment - granting 60 Motion for Summary Judgment. Officer Weinke's motion for summary judgment 60 must be granted. No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims resolved in this Entry. (See Entry.) Copy to plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 7/13/2012. (RSF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
MONWELL DOUGLAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
REGISTERED NURSE KIM HOBSON,
Employed by Correctional Medical
Services, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-179-WTL-DKL
Entry Discussing Motion for Summary Judgment
Monwell Douglas brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.
Correctional Officer Norma Weinke moves for summary judgment, arguing that
Douglas failed to exhaust available administrative remedies with respect to the
claim against her.
Standard of Review
Summary judgment will be granted when the moving party demonstrates
that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine
issue of material fact when “the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational
trier of fact to find for the non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
A non-moving party “may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the
adverse party's pleadings, but . . . must set forth specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Showing that there is some
metaphysical doubt as to the material facts is not enough; “the mere existence of a
scintilla of evidence” in support of the nonmoving party is not sufficient to show a
genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252
(1986). Rather, the nonmoving party must present “significant probative evidence”
in support of its opposition to the motion for summary judgment in order to defeat
the motion. Moore v. Philip Morris Co., 8 F.3d 335, 340 (6th Cir. 1993); see also
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249–50. “[C]ourts are required to view the facts and draw
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
summary judgment motion.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (quoting
United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (internal mark omitted).
Discussion
The Exhaustion Requirement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“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, 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., 534 U.S. at 532 (citation
omitted).
“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). "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.'" Dale v.
Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004) (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d
1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Douglas’ Claim
The grievance program in place at WVCF allows prisoners to grieve matters
that involve actions of individual staff. The grievance process at WVCF includes an
attempt to resolve the complaint informally, as well as two formal steps—a formal
written grievance (“Level I”), and then an appeal of the response to the level one
grievance (“Level II”). On or about March 10, 2011, Douglas filed a Level I grievance
complaining about Weinke’s actions. On or about March 28, 2011, Douglas’ Level I
grievance was denied. Based on the grievance policy, Douglas had 10 working
days—until March 28, 2011—to file his appeal. An appeal form was sent to Douglas
at the wrong location on June 10, 2011. Douglas did not file a Level II Appeal to the
agency level.
If Douglas had attempted to obtain an appeal form within the time frame and
did not receive one, it may be true that he was thwarted in his attempt to exhaust
available administrative remedies; this would satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[W]hen prison officials fail to
provide inmates with the forms necessary to file an administrative grievance,
administrative remedies are not “available.”)(internal citation omitted). But
Douglas alleges that an appeal form was sent to him at the wrong location on June
10, 2011, more than two months after he received the denial of his grievance. This is
well beyond the 10-day period required by the grievance process. There is no
evidence that Douglas requested an appeal form or otherwise attempted to appeal
in a timely manner. Douglas therefore failed to properly exhaust his available
administrative remedies as to his claim against Correctional Officer Norma Weinke.
Conclusion
To exhaust available administrative remedies, a prisoner must abide by the
rules and timelines required by the prison. This includes the filing of a timely
appeal of a decision on a grievance where there is a prescribed level for an appeal.
Douglas did not file a timely appeal and has not shown that he was thwarted in
doing so. Accordingly, Officer Weinke’s motion for summary judgment [60] must be
granted.
No partial final judgment shall issue as to the claims resolved in this Entry.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
07/13/2012
Date: _________________
_______________________________
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Monwell Douglas
DOC #150812
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old U.S. Highway 41
P.O. Box 1111
Carlisle, IN 47838
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?