United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY DISCUSSING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
Jane Magnus-Stinson, Chief Judge
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.
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.
reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants' motion
for summary judgment, dkt. , is granted, and Mr.
Neidige's claims are dismissed without prejudice.
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). 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).
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.
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
following evidence is either undisputed or identified as
The Administrative Remedy Process
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.
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 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 ...