Smith v. Corizon Med. Servs.
| Decision Date | 30 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12-cv-1208-SEB-MJD |
| Parties | KEVIN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
In this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff Kevin Smith, an inmate at the Plainfield Correctional Facility, claims alleges that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. He sues correctional officers Sergeant Kenneth Cork, Sergeant Nhut Daniels, Lieutenant Kenneth Thompson (the ) and medical care providers Corizon Health, Inc., Richard Tanner, Kayla McDermitt, and L'Tia Lewis (the "Corizon Defendants").
The State Defendants and the Corizon Defendants have each moved for summary judgment arguing that Smith failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing this action.
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 Agenuine@ 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).
Smith has responded to the motions for summary judgment but his responses do not include the Statement of Material Facts in Dispute required by Local Rule 56-1(b). District courts have discretion to strictly enforce their local rules even against pro se litigants. See Cady v. Sheahan, 467 F.3d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir. 2006); Cichon v. Exelon Generation Co., 401 F.3d 803, 809-10 (7th Cir. 2005). He has also filed his own Motion in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, but this motion also does not comply with the evidentiary requirements of Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The consequence of these circumstances is that Smith has conceded the defendants' version of the events. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003) (); see also Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp., 653 F.3d 532, 544 (7th Cir. 2011); Wackett v. City of Beaver Dam, 642 F.3d 578, 582 n.1 (7th Cir. 2011). This does not alter the standard for assessing a Rule 56(a) motion, but does "reduc[e] the pool" from which the facts and inferences relative to such a motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
The following facts, construed in the manner most favorable to Smith as the non-movant, are undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment:
Smith alleges in his complaint that on March 23, 2012, defendants Cork and Daniels improperly denied his request to sleep on a bottom bunk, a request he made based on his epilepsydisorder. As a result, he fell from the top bunk on which he was sleeping and was injured. Smith alleges that after he fell from his bunk, defendant Thompson took him out of the medical department before he could receive proper evaluation. Smith further alleges that the Corizon Defendants failed to provide him proper medical care after his fall.
There is an administrative remedy process, implemented through a grievance procedure, available at the Plainfield Correctional Facility applicable to these claims. Pursuant to the grievance policy, the offender must attempt to obtain informal resolution of his complaints by contacting staff to discuss the matter subject to the grievance. If he is unable to obtain a resolution of the grievance informally, he may submit a formal written complaint (Level I) to the Grievance Specialist at the facility. If the formal written complaint is not resolved in a manner satisfactory to the offender, he may submit an appeal (Level II) within ten working days from the date of receipt of the grievance response. If the offender receives no grievance response within twenty-five working days of the day he submitted the grievance, he may appeal as though the grievance had been denied. Exhaustion of the grievance procedure requires pursuing a grievance to the final step. Exhaustion also requires compliance with the timing requirements for submitting formal grievances and appeals.
Since arriving at the Plainfield Correctional Facility, Smith has filed one grievance related to his fall from his bunk. In this grievance, dated March 26, 2012, Smith alleged that when he was moved to a new cell on March 23, 2012, Cork and Daniels assigned him a top bunk even though he had a pass for a bottom bunk. He also alleged that Thompson improperly interfered with his medical care. The Corizon Defendants are not named or mentioned in the March 23 grievance. Except for the allegation regarding Thompson removing him from the medical department, Smith makes no allegation in the grievance regarding the adequacy of his medical care. A Return of Grievance Response was issued on March 28, 2012, informing Smiththat his grievance was rejected because he failed to attempt to resolve the complaint informally as required by the Grievance Policy. Smith did not respond to the Return of Grievance and has filed no appeal of any grievance.
"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) () (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)).
With respect to Smith's complaint that he was improperly assigned to a top bunk and his claim that Thompson interfered with his medical care, it is undisputed that (1) Smith attempted to file a grievance regarding his assignment to a top bunk and Thompson's alleged interference, (2) that grievance was rejected because Smith did not show that he had attempted to informally resolve this complaint as directed by the grievance policy, and (3) Smith made no further attempt to pursue the grievance procedure regarding this complaint. Smith therefore failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies on this issue.
With respect to Smith's complaint regarding the medical care he received after he fell from his bunk, it is undisputed that he filed no grievance regarding the provision of medical care. Further, as discussed, Smith filed only one grievance regarding his fall from the top bunk and failed to complete the grievance...
To continue reading
Request your trial