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.

Hooten v. Corizon LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

January 4, 2017

MICHAEL HOOTEN, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON LLC, PAUL TALBOT Doctor, in his official and individual capacity as Health Care Provider for the Indiana Department of Correction, and JAMIE THOMAS, LPN, Defendants.

          ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          TANYA WALTON PRATT, JUDGE United States District Court

         Plaintiff Michael Hooten (“Mr. Hooten”), an Indiana state prisoner incarcerated at Pendleton Correctional Facility (“Pendleton”) filed this civil rights action on April 20, 2016. Mr. Hooten alleges that Defendants Corizon, Dr. Paul Talbot and Nurse Jamie Thomas failed to provide him constitutionally adequate medical care after he fell in the Pendleton gymnasium on June 28, 2015. The fall caused an AC joint separation and Mr. Hooten reports that he is now experiencing nerve damage in his hand. Mr. Hooten alleges that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to promptly diagnose and treat his shoulder injury.

         The Defendants asserted the affirmative defense that Mr. Hooten failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) at 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e). The Defendants now seek summary judgment under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure arguing that Mr. Hooten failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies within the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) before filing this action. Mr. Hooten opposes this motion for summary judgment.

         For the reasons explained below, the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Filing No. 23) is granted and this action is dismissed based on Mr. Hooten's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.

         I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         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).

         To survive a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must set forth specific, admissible evidence showing that there is a material issue for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The key inquiry is whether admissible evidence exists to support a plaintiff's claims, not the weight or credibility of that evidence, both of which are assessments reserved to the trier of fact. See Schacht v. Wis. Dep't of Corrections, 175 F.3d 497, 504 (7th Cir. 1999). When evaluating this inquiry, the Court must give the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the evidence submitted and resolve “any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial ... against the moving party.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 330.

         II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

         Applying the standards set for above, the following facts are undisputed.

         A. IDOC Grievance Procedures

         Since June 28, 2015, Mr. Hooten has been incarcerated at Pendleton. As an inmate incarcerated with the IDOC, Mr. Hooten had access to the Offender Grievance Process. The purpose of the Offender Grievance Process is to provide administrative means by which inmates may resolve concerns and complaints related to their conditions of confinement. All offenders are made aware of the Offender Grievance Process during orientation and a copy of the Offender Grievance Process is available in various locations within the facility.

         The Offender Grievance Process consists of three stages. First, an offender must attempt to resolve the grievance informally through officials at the facility. The offender is required to attempt to contact the Offender Grievance Specialist, Casework Manager, Caseworker, or Unit Team member within five (5) business days from the date of the incident to obtain a State Form 52897 “Offender Complaint-Informal Process Level” form. The offender must attempt to resolve the problem or complaint with the staff in question within five (5) business days from the date of receiving State Form 52897. (Filing No. 24-2 at 14.) “There should be no instance where the time period is over ten (10) business days in returning State Form 52897 . . . to the Offender Grievance Specialist.” Id. at 15.

         If the offender is unable to resolve his complaint informally, he may file a Level I Offender Grievance. This includes the submission of a Level I Grievance form to the Administrative Assistant (also known as the Grievance Coordinator) of the facility. Ms. Camay Francum is the Grievance Coordinator at Pendleton. The time to submit a formal ...


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.