Haywood v. Maue, 111920 FED7, 19-2805
|Party Name:||JOHN D. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LUCAS MAUE, Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge|
|Case Date:||November 19, 2020|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Submitted November 10, 2020 [*]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. No. 18-cv-524-SMY-RJD Staci M. Yandle, Judge.
Before DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge, MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
John Haywood, an Illinois inmate, appeals the entry of summary judgment against him in his suit for alleged constitutional violations stemming from an altercation with another inmate. Because Haywood did not exhaust his administrative remedies, we affirm.
In 2018 Haywood sued corrections officer Lucas Maue under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an incident that occurred four years earlier while he was incarcerated at Menard Correctional Facility in Chester, Illinois. According to Haywood's complaint, Maue incited him to fight his cellmate for possession of the bottom bunk and then put him in a chokehold, causing injuries. Haywood filed an emergency grievance with the warden, who forwarded it to a grievance officer. The grievance officer denied the grievance on September 2, 2014, and the chief administrative officer concurred with that ruling six days later. The grievance officer's report notified Haywood that he had 30 days from the date of the chief administrative officer's decision to appeal to the Administrative Review Board. Although Haywood signed and dated his appeal September 11, 2014, the Board received the appeal on October 23-45 days after the date of the chief administrative officer's decision. The Board returned the appeal as untimely.
The district judge referred Haywood's complaint to a magistrate judge for a hearing under Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899, 904 (7th Cir. 2011), to determine whether Haywood exhausted his administrative remedies before filing suit as required by 42 U.S.C. § l997e(a). After a hearing the magistrate judge determined that Haywood's appeal to the Board was untimely, that his testimony about not receiving the chief administrative officer's decision until mid-October was disingenuous and not credible, that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this suit, and that his complaint otherwise was barred by Illinois's two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions. See 735...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP