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.

Neidige v. Corizon Inc.

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

April 25, 2017

GARY NEIDIGE, Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON INC., et al. Defendants.

          ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge

         Plaintiff Gary Neidige, who at all relevant times was incarcerated at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”), brought this civil rights action pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corizon, Inc. and individual medical providers at Wabash Valley. Mr. Neidige alleges that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent to his medical needs caused by colon cancer.

         The Court recruited counsel to represent Mr. Neidige in this action. Presently pending before the Court is the defendants' motion for summary judgment. They contend that Mr. Neidige failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing this action as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Mr. Neidige has responded, and the defendants have replied.

         For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [56], is granted, and Mr. Neidige's claims are dismissed without prejudice.

         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). 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).

         II. Background

         The defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the claims are barred under the exhaustion provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e.

         That provision requires a prisoner to first exhaust his available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in court. The parties both present evidence supporting their respective positions.

         The following evidence is either undisputed or identified as dispute.

         A. The Administrative Remedy Process

         The Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”) has an Offender Grievance Process (or “grievance policy”) through which inmates can grieve issues related to their conditions of confinement, such as the claims at issue here. The Offender Grievance Process in effect at all times relevant to this action consisted of three steps: (1) informal grievance; (2) formal grievance; and (3) grievance appeal. Each step, as explained further below, must be timely completed in order to fully exhaust one's administrative remedies.

         The informal grievance step process requires the inmate to obtain an informal grievance form from specified staff within five days of the incident in question. The inmate then must attempt to informally resolve the issue with the appropriate staff member within five days of obtaining the informal grievance form.

         If the grievance is not resolved informally within ten days of the incident, the inmate must submit a formal grievance to the Grievance Specialist. The formal grievance is either rejected, in which case the inmate receives a “Return of Grievance” form, or it is accepted and the inmate receives a ...


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.