United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ANTAEUS ANDERSON, MIAMI CORRECTIONAL FACILITY Counsel
ENTRY DISCUSSING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WALTON PRATT, JUDGE
Antaeus Anderson brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 alleging that he was subjected to excessive force
while he was incarcerated at the Pendleton Correctional
Facility (“Pendleton”) in violation of his Eighth
Amendment rights. Specifically, Mr. Anderson claims that on
March 6, 2015, Officer Robert Colstock used a cuff port
locking mechanism as a weapon against him. Arguing that Mr.
Anderson failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), Officer Colstock moves for summary
judgment on Mr. Anderson's claims. For the following
reasons, the motion for summary judgment [dkt 39] is granted.
Standard of Review
judgment should be granted “if 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). The party seeking summary judgment
“bears the initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying” designated evidence which
“demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
the moving party has met its burden, the non-movant may not
rest upon mere allegations. Instead, “[t]o successfully
oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must come forward with specific facts demonstrating that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Trask-Morton
v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir.
2008). “The non-movant will successfully oppose summary
judgment only when it presents definite, competent evidence
to rebut the motion.” Vukadinovich v. Bd. of Sch.
Trs., 278 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
Anderson was incarcerated at Pendleton, an Indiana State
prison, on March 6, 2015. There is a Indiana Department of
Correction (“DOC”) Policy and Administrative
Procedure 00-02-301, Offender Grievance Process, was the
grievance program in place at Pendleton during the time Mr.
Anderson alleges that his rights were violated. Policy and
Administrative Procedure 00-02-301 was the policy governing
the grievance procedure and it detailed how an offender must
exhaust his administrative remedies using that procedure. The
Offender Grievance Process was revised on April 5, 2015, but
the incident alleged in this case was subject to the policy
in place on March 6, 2015, when the incident occurred.
the Offender Grievance Process, inmates can submit grievances
about the actions of individual correctional officers and
other staff. The Grievance Process includes an attempt to
resolve the complaint informally, as well as two formal
steps: a formal written grievance, and an appeal of the
response to the level one grievance. Exhaustion of the
Grievance Process requires the submission of a formal
grievance and the filing of an appeal. If an inmate does not
receive a response from staff in accordance with the
established time frames, he is entitled to move to the next
stage of the process.
Anderson alleges in his Complaint that on March 6, 2015,
Officer Colstock used a cuff port locking mechanism as a
weapon against him. DOC's records indicate that Mr.
Anderson did not file a grievance regarding the incident this
incident. Moreover, Pendleton's Grievance Specialist at
the time of the alleged incident in March of 2015, does not
recall receiving a grievance from Mr. Anderson involving an
alleged assault with a cuff port locking mechanism by Officer
Anderson was aware of the proper process for filing a
grievance at Pendleton, as demonstrated by the grievance
filed on January 8, 2015, as Case Log # 86130. Despite this
knowledge, Mr. Anderson failed to submit any grievances
regarding this incident as required by DOC policy.
August 31, 2015, Mr. Anderson filed his complaint in this
civil action. As of April 7, 2016, Mr. Anderson had failed to
submit a grievance, formal or otherwise, nor pursue the
grievance process through appeal, regarding the March 6,
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. Dole v.
Chandler,438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). The
PLRA's exhaustion ...