Daniels v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 24 February 2022
• Docket Number: 20-cv-96-DWD
• Parties: DARRIAN DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. FRANK LAWRENCE, M. SIDDIQUI, NURSE REVA, DR. SKIDMORE, JOHN KOCH, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Illinois

DARRIAN DANIELS, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK LAWRENCE, M. SIDDIQUI, NURSE REVA, DR. SKIDMORE, JOHN KOCH, Defendants.

No. 20-cv-96-DWD

United States District Court, S.D. Illinois

February 24, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID W. DUGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Darrian Daniels, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for deprivations of his Eighth Amendment rights related to his requests to be treated for his hearing loss and to receive ADA disability accommodations. Following a screening of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff proceeds on the following two counts:

Count 1: Eighth Amendment claim against Lawrence, Reva Siddiqui, Skidmore, and Koch for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for failing to treat his deafness

Count 2: Eighth Amendment claim against Koch for excessive force and mistreatment related to Koch spraying Plaintiff with mace in April 2020

(Doc. 56). Now before the Court are three Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Siddiqui (Doc. 73), Defendants Lawrence and Reva (Doc. 95) and Defendants

1

Koch and Skidmore (Doc. 100). Defendants seek summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this action (Docs. 73, 95, 100). Defendants filed corresponding memorandums (Docs. 74, 96, 101) and Plaintiff filed responses to each motion (Docs. 89, 98, 105). For the reasons detailed below, the Motions will be granted.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is "proper only if the pleadings, discovery materials, disclosures, and affidavits demonstrate no genuine issue of material fact such that [Defendants are] entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Wragg v. Village of Thornton, 604 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 2010). A genuine issue of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Defendants bear the initial burden of demonstrating a lack of genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The Court considers the facts in a light most favorable to the non-movant, here Plaintiff. Srail v. Vill. of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940, 948 (7th Cir. 2009).

Courts generally cannot resolve factual disputes on a motion for summary judgment. E.g., Nat'l Athletic Sportswear, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 528 F.3d 508, 512 (7th Cir. 2008). However, when the motion for summary judgment pertains to a prisoner's failure to exhaust, the Seventh Circuit has instructed courts to conduct an evidentiary hearing and resolve contested issues of fact regarding a prisoner's efforts to exhaust. Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 588-90 (7th Cir. 2015); see Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008). A hearing is not necessary, when, like here, exhaustion or the lack of

2

exhaustion, is apparent. Wagoner, 778 F.3d at 588; see e.g., Doss v. Gilkey, 649 F.Supp.2d 905, 912 (S.D. Ill. 2009); Walker v. Harris, 2021 WL 3287832 * 1 (S.D. Ill. 2021); Miller v. Wexford Health Source, Inc., 2017 WL 951399 *2 (S.D. Ill. 2017).

Lawsuits filed by inmates are governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). The PLRA provides, in relevant part, that "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 correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The purpose of the PLRA is to "afford corrections officials time and opportunity to address complaints internally before allowing the initiation of a federal case." Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 92 (2006).

The Seventh Circuit requires strict adherence to the PLRA's exhaustion requirement. Reid v. Balota, 962 F.3d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 2020); Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). An inmate must take all the steps required by the prison's grievance system to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 397 (7th Cir. 2004); Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). However, an inmate is only required to exhaust those administrative remedies that are available to him. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Reid, 962 F.3d at 329. Administrative remedies become "unavailable" to prisoners when prison officials fail to respond to a properly filed grievance. See e.g. Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829, 833 (7th Cir. 2002). Further, an inmate is not required to continue their grievance efforts once it is determined that they have received all requested relief and no further remedies are available. Thornton v. Snyder, 428 F.3d 690, 694-97 (7th Cir. 2005).

3

As an inmate in the IDOC, Plaintiff was required to follow the three-step grievance process outlined in the Illinois Administrative Code. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.800, et seq (detailing grievance procedure). In short, if a prisoner has a grievance, he must first seek the assistance of an inmate counselor. Id. at § 504.810. If the counselor is unable to resolve the grievance, it is sent to the grievance officer, who submits a recommendation to the chief administrative officer (usually the warden). Id. at §§ 504.810; 504.830. If the warden denies the prisoner's grievance, the prisoner has 30 days in which to appeal the decision to the IDOC Director by sending the grievance to the ARB. Id. at § 504.850. The Illinois Administrative Code also provides a process for filing emergency grievances, see 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.840, and certain grievances must be filed directly with the ARB. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.870(a)(4).

Generally, the regulations expect prisons to respond to a grievance within two months, and the ARB to render final decisions within six months, "when reasonably feasible under the circumstances." See Ill. Admin Code §§ 504.840, 504.850(e); Jackson v. Shepherd, 552 Fed.Appx. 591, 592 (7th Cir. 2014). However, these deadlines are "aspirational" and a failure to render a decision within the suggested deadlines does not, by itself, mean an inmate's administrative remedies are "unavailable." See Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 400 (7th Cir. 2004) (noting that that some appeals are more complex and take longer than the suggested time in the regulations).

4

Discussion

Relevant to this matter, Plaintiff submitted two grievances concerning the incidents at issue in this dispute. These grievances are dated November 22, 2019 (No. 279-11-19) and April 19, 2020 (No. 33-5-20) (Doc. 58, p. 20; Doc. 74, pp. 13-19).

The November 22, 2019 Grievance alleges that Plaintiff had sent several letters to Dr. Siddiqui requesting medical attention for his left ear, and further spoke with Nurse Reva multiple times about requesting medical attention, but that Plaintiff was not given medical attention because of Warden Lawrence's orders (Doc. 74, pp. 13-14; see also Doc. 58, pp. 20-21). This grievance raises issues related to Plaintiffs Count 1 against Defendants Siddiqui, Reva, and Lawrence. The April 19, 2020 Grievance (No. 33-5-20) also directly relates to the claims at issue in this dispute (Doc. 96, pp. 12-13). Specifically, Plaintiff complains of the April 19, 2020 mace incident with Defendant Koch (Id.). Plaintiff further complains...