Turley v. Rednour

• Decision Date: 03 July 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11–1491.,11–1491.
• Citation: 729 F.3d 645
• Parties: Gregory J. TURLEY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Dave REDNOUR, et al., Defendants–Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

729 F.3d 645

Gregory J. TURLEY, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.Dave REDNOUR, et al., Defendants–Appellees.

No. 11–1491.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

Argued Sept. 10, 2012.

Decided July 3, 2013.

Christopher Bayh (argued), Attorney, Wilmerhale, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Mary Ellen Welsh (argued), Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Chicago, IL, for Defendants–Appellees.

Before EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, and CUDAHY and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge.

This is a case about a prison's lockdowns and Eighth Amendment, conspiracy, and Due Process claims arising from those repeated lockdowns.

Gregory J. Turley is serving a life sentence in Menard Correctional Center, a state prison in downstate Illinois. He is classified as a low-aggression offender, and housed in a unit with other prisoners of similar aggression levels. In the period between January 7, 2008, and October 4, 2010, prison administration frequently placed the prison on lockdown wherein prisoners were confined to their cells without any yard time. In all, 25 lockdowns were imposed, with 81 days being the longest continuous period of lockdown, and totaling 534 lockdown days. Thus, prisoners were confined in lockdown status for more than 50% of the period in question.

Turley brought two intertwined Eighth Amendment violation claims, a conspiracy claim and a Due Process claim with regard to Menard's lockdowns. He alleged that these lockdowns were often imposed for non-penologically-related purposes, such as isolated fights between two inmates from other cellhouses, rumors of a potential fight or for no reason at all. The repeated lockdowns resulted in lack of exercise for inmates. Turley further claims that by confining two inmates together in a small cell, in the context of the frequent use of lockdowns, prison officials showed deliberate indifference to inmates' physical and psychological injuries. Specifically, Turley claims that he suffered injuries such as irritable bowel syndrome, headaches, tinnitus, sleep deprivation, colon spasms, nosebleeds, weight loss and extreme stress.

Turley alleges that the excessive use of lockdowns arose out of a conspiracy among prison officials and union employees to create a staff shortage and negotiate a pay raise. Additionally, Turley alleges there was a conspiracy to exaggerate prison response to minor incidents, or no incidents at all, in order to allow staff to take vacation and/or to psychologically punish all prisoners for the misconduct of a few. Finally, Turley claims that his $10 per month idle pay stipend was withheld during lockdown periods without due process. His complaint was brought against various prison personnel. See SA at A–16 (listing names and positions).

Before bringing this claim, Turley filed several grievances with Menard Correctional Center. The record includes a letter from the Administrative Review Board, the highest authority within the prison's complaint system, denying a grievance Turley filed based on “Administrative Policy (Lockdowns)” in 2008. SA at A–24. The underlying grievance report is not included in the record.

Turley also filed a grievance in February 2009. SA at A18. There, he challenged the frequent use of lockdown as an exaggerated response to security concerns, a way to avoid paying overtime to employees and a way to give staff vacation time (particularly around holidays). A–19–22. Turley specifically listed lockdowns that occurred from November 24, 2008 to December 9, 2008, and from December 29, 2008 to January 12, 2009. A–19. Further, Turley listed 14 other lockdowns occurring throughout 2008 that showed a pattern of lockdowns coinciding with holidays. Id. He also complained that a lockdown in his own low-to-medium-aggression cellhouse was frequently imposed due to incidents between inmates in other, completely separate cellhouses. A–20, A–23. His grievance was denied by the Administrative Review Board on June 10, 2009. SA at A–17.

Turley then filed an October 2009 grievance. SA at A–27 (partially illegible). In this grievance, Turley described his confinement to a 40 square foot segregation cell with another prisoner. Turley alleges that this grievance was ignored by prison officials. Similarly, he received no response to a grievance filed in August 2010.

In October 2010, Turley filed his pro se federal complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the district court reviewed this claim for sufficiency.¹ The court dismissed both Eighth Amendment claims at the screening review stage and did not address the conspiracy or Due Process claims. The district court erroneously noted that Turley did not state “how long the lockdown lasted, making it impossible for the Court to determine ... whether there had been an eighth amendment violation.”

Turley, now represented by counsel, is appealing the dismissal of his complaint. The state of Illinois has filed a brief as a party in interest in the matter.

This court reviews § 1915A dismissals under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) standard for stating a claim for relief. Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749, 755–56 (7th Cir.2010). Dismissal orders are reviewed de novo, “taking all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Id. at 756 (quoting Zimmerman v. Tribble, 226 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

We must examine whether Turley properly exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit, whether these federal claims are time-barred and whether Turley's complaint sufficiently states a claim to survive dismissal. We find that Turley's Eighth Amendment claim clears these hurdles, but his Due Process claim does not, and so we partially reverse the judgment of the district court. Turley's conspiracy claim is superfluous in light of the fact that all named defendants are state actors.²

I.

Prisoners must properly exhaust all available administrative remedies before pursuing claims, including § 1983 actions, in federal court. Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (2006). A prisoner must exhaust his grievances in accordance with prison procedural rules. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84, 88, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006). In Illinois, the last level of appeal for a prisoner pursuing a grievance is a final determination by the Director. 20 Ill. Admin. Code 504.850(a)-(f). The exhaustion requirement's primary purpose is to “alert [ ] the state” to the problem “and invit[e] corrective action.” Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir.2004); see also Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense, with the burden of proof on the defendants. Jones, 549 U.S. at 203–04, 127 S.Ct. 910;Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 720 (7th Cir.2011).

The State asserts that Turley did not exhaust all of his administrative remedies because first, he mentioned only two specific instances of lockdown in his grievances, and second, his latter two grievances did not receive a response. We disagree.

Turley's February 2009 grievance, which was pursued to a final decision by the Director, suffices to exhaust the claims challenging lockdown policy. The state is right that Turley listed only two specific dates of lockdowns, but the state does not note the fact that he also mentioned 14 other lockdown incidents in 2008. Turley was challenging not just specific incidents of lockdown, but Menard's lockdown policies in general. This is confirmed by the 2008 decision letter, which indicates that Turley was challenging lockdown policy as a continuing violation of his rights.

In order to exhaust their remedies, prisoners need not file multiple, successive grievances raising the same issue (such as prison conditions or policies) if the objectionable condition is continuing. See, e.g., Parzyck v. Prison Health Servs. Inc., 627 F.3d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir.2010) (prisoner “not required to initiate another round of the administrative grievance process on the exact same issue each time” a deprivation occurred); Howard v. Waide, 534 F.3d 1227, 1244 (10th Cir.2008); Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 521 (5th Cir.2004). Separate complaints about particular incidents are only required if the underlying facts or the complaints are different. See, e.g., Siggers v. Campbell, 652 F.3d 681, 692 (6th Cir.2011) (distinguishing Johnson and another case finding exhaustion, because in those cases the underlying complaint was the same); Moore v. Bennette, 517 F.3d 717, 728–29 (4th Cir.2008) (finding no exhaustion where prisoner complained of inadequate medical care for Hepatitis C but not for gout). Thus, once a prison has received notice of, and an opportunity to correct, a problem, the prisoner has satisfied the purpose of the exhaustion requirement. Here, Turley's complaints centered around continuing prison policies, including allegedly illegal lockdowns, and one occurrence of notice from Turley was sufficient to give the prison a chance to correct the problems.

The present grievance was likely sufficient to exhaust all Turley's complaints. For instance, he made related allegations such as that his state stipend was confiscated during lockdowns, and discussed how his tiny cell prevented exercise and how prison officials knew prison conditions led to injuries. The state's argument that Turley's latter two grievances—those to which he had not received a response when he filed suit—were not exhausted is unpersuasive since the original grievance suffices.³

II.

The State asserts that some portion of Turley's complaint was clearly time-barred and should have been dismissed on this basis. This argument is without merit.

Section 1983 suits in Illinois have a two-year statute of limitations, which is tolled while the prisoner exhausts the administrative grievance process. Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519, 521–22 (7th Cir.2001). For...