BEST v. ARAMARK

Filing 38

ORDER granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. It is undisputed that Mr. Best had not completed the administrative remedy process before he filed this lawsuit. He therefore failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing suit as required by the PLRA. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. **SEE ORDER** Copy to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/6/2015. (AH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
ALVIN MARK BEST,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-243-JMS-DKL

Entry Granting Motion for Summary Judgment
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
This is a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Alvin Best, an inmate
at the Putnamville Correctional Facility (“Putnamville”) alleging that the defendant, Aramark
Correctional Services, LLC, violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and
unusual punishment by failing to provide him nutritionally adequate food. Arguing that Mr. Best
failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, Aramark moves for summary judgment.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment should be granted Aif 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. If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then there
is no “genuine” dispute. Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007). 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).
Discussion
A. Undisputed Facts
At all times relevant to his claims in this suit, Mr. Best was incarcerated at Putnamville. As
an inmate incarcerated with the Indiana Department of Correction, the Offender Grievance Process
was available to him. The purpose of the Offender Grievance Process is to provide administrative
means by which inmates may resolve concerns and complaints related to the conditions of their
confinement. All inmates are made aware of the Offender Grievance Process during orientation
and a copy of the Process is available in various locations within the prisons, including the law
library.
The Offender Grievance Process consists of three stages. First, an inmate must attempt to
resolve the grievance informally with officials at the facility. The informal resolution step is
interactive, and requires the inmate to communicate with prison staff through open and courteous
discussion before turning to the grievance process. If an inmate is unable to resolve his complaint
informally, he may file a Level I Offender Grievance. This includes the submission of a Level I
Grievance form to the Administrative Assistant of the facility. Inmates can obtain a grievance form
by asking or sending a request to either to their case manager or a custody officer.
While incarcerated at Putnamville during the timeframe relevant to this action, Mr. Best
filed an informal grievance regarding his diet on March 31, 2014. He filed a Level I formal
grievance on April 29, 2014. He filed an appeal on May 27, 2014 and received a response to the
appeal on June 3, 2014. Mr. Best filed his Complaint in the Putnam County Circuit Court on April
9, 2014.

B. Exhaustion
In support of the motion for summary judgment, Aramark argues that Mr. Best failed to
exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit as required by the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) with respect to his claims.
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,
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. See
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006).
It is undisputed that Mr. Best had not completed the administrative remedy process before
he filed this lawsuit. He therefore failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies before
filing suit as required by the PLRA. See Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir. 2004) (The
PLRA is routinely enforced by “dismissing a suit that begins too soon, even if a plaintiff exhausts
his administrative remedies while the litigation is pending.”). The consequence of these
circumstances, in light of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), is that Mr. Best’s 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
Aramark’s motion for summary judgment [dkt 21] is granted. Judgment consistent with
this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

04/06/2015
Date: _________________
Distribution:
Alvin Mark Best
850121
Putnamville Correctional Facility
1946 West US Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
All electronically registered counsel