Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor v. Gilbert

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

October 13, 2016

ROBERT TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
OFFICER GILBERT, et al., Defendants.

          ENTRY DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND, AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge United States District Court

         I. Motion for Summary Judgment

         Plaintiff Robert Taylor (“Mr. Taylor”) is a federal inmate formerly confined at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana (“USP Terre Haute”). After screening the complaint and dismissing some claims, the Court determined that Mr. Taylor's claims of excessive force would proceed against Officers Gilbert, Griffen, Lutz, and Tarrh (the “Defendants”).

         The Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Mr. Taylor's claims are barred because he failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Mr. Taylor has opposed the motion for summary judgment and the Defendants have replied. The Defendants supplemented their motion as directed by the Court, and Mr. Taylor responded to the supplement. The motion is ripe for ruling.

         For the reasons explained in this Entry, the Defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. 34] is denied.

         A. Legal Standards

         Summary 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). 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 “genuine” dispute. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (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).

         “The applicable substantive law will dictate which facts are material.” National Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc., v. Superior Systems, Inc., 98 F.3d 262, 265 (7th Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The substantive law applicable to the motion for summary judgment is the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), which requires that a prisoner exhaust his available administrative remedies before bringing a suit concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). See Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). “[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other wrong.” Id. at 532 (citation omitted). The Court must consider the issue of exhaustion before reaching the merits. Perez v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 536 (7th Cir. 1999) (“The statute [requiring administrative exhaustion] can function properly only if the judge resolves disputes about its application before turning to any other issue in the suit.”).

         B. Discussion

         1. Undisputed Facts

         The following statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the standards set forth above. That is, this statement of facts is not necessarily objectively true, but as the summary judgment standard requires, the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light reasonably most favorable to Mr. Taylor as the non-moving party with respect to the motion for summary judgment. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).

         The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has promulgated an administrative remedy system which is codified in 28 C.F.R. § 542.10, et seq., and BOP Program Statement 1330.18, Administrative Remedy Program. The administrative remedy process is a method by which an inmate may seek formal review of a complaint related to any aspect of his imprisonment. 28 C.F.R. § 542.10. To exhaust his remedies, an inmate must first file an informal remedy request through an appropriate institution staff member via a BP-8, prior to filing a formal administrative remedy request with the Warden, Regional Director, and General Counsel.

         If the inmate is not satisfied with the informal remedy response (BP-8), he is required to address his complaint at the institutional level with the Warden via a BP-9 form. 28 U.S.C. § 542.14. If the inmate is dissatisfied with the Warden's response to his BP-9, he may appeal to the Regional Director via a BP-10. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. If dissatisfied with the Regional Director's response, the inmate may appeal to the General Counsel/Central Office via a BP-11. 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. Once an inmate receives a response to his appeal from the General Counsel/Central Office, after filing administrative remedies at all required levels, his administrative remedies are deemed exhausted, as to the specific issue(s) properly raised therein. See BOP Program Statement, Administrative Remedy Program, 1330.18, available at http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/ 1330018.pdf.

         An exception to the initial filing requirement at the institutional level exists “[i]f the inmate reasonably believes the issue is sensitive and the inmate's safety or well-being would be placed in danger if the Request became known at the institution….” See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(d)(1). In a “sensitive” filing, the inmate may submit the initial request directly to the Regional Director (sensitive BP-10). The submission must contain the word “sensitive” and contain a written explanation of the inmate's reasoning for not following the normal submission process of filing at the institutional level. Id. If the Regional Administrative Remedy Coordinator agrees that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.