United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ENTRY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DIRECTING FINAL
William T. Lawrence, Judge
Damon Giles is a federal prisoner who was previously confined
at U.S.P. Terre Haute. The Court screened his complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined that
Eighth Amendment medical claims and related state-law claims
could proceed against defendants Dr. Bailey, Ms. Gossett, Dr.
Southwick, and Dr. Kaj (who was incorrectly referred to as
Dr. Kajimad by the plaintiff). The other defendants were
dismissed from the action. The four remaining defendants move
for summary judgment, by way of three separate motions, on
their affirmative defense that Mr. Giles failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. Mr. Giles did not respond to any
of the defendants' motions, and the time to do so has
reasons explained, the defendants' unopposed motions for
summary judgment, [dkt. 61, dkt. 64, dkt. 68], are
granted, and Mr. Giles's claims are
dismissed without prejudice.
Giles is a federal prisoner currently incarcerated at the
Rochester Federal Medical Center. His claims that made it
through the Court's screening, however, stem from his
time incarcerated at U.S.P. Terre Haute and are asserted
against four staff at that facility: Dr. Bailey, Ms. Gossett,
Dr. Southwick, and Dr. Kaj. He alleges that he was denied
adequate medical care for an infection of his right leg,
which caused significant pain and blood clots and left two
holes in his leg.
defendants move for summary judgment. They argue that these
claims are barred under the exhaustion provision of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e, that requires a prisoner to first exhaust his
available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in
noted, Mr. Giles failed to respond to the defendants'
motions for summary judgment, and the deadline for doing so
has passed. The consequence is that Mr. Giles has conceded
the defendants' version of the events. See Smith v.
Lamz, 321 F.3d 680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003)
(“[F]ailure to respond by the nonmovant as mandated by
the local rules results in an admission.”);
see S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1 (“A party
opposing a summary judgment motion must . . . file and serve
a response brief and any evidence . . . that the party relies
on to oppose the motion. The response must . . . identif[y]
the potentially determinative facts and factual disputes that
the party contends demonstrate a dispute of fact precluding
summary judgment.”). This does not alter the standard
for assessing a Rule 56 motion, but it does “reduc[e]
the pool” from which the facts and inferences relative
to such a motion may be drawn. Smith v. Severn, 129
F.3d 419, 426 (7th Cir. 1997).
the following facts, unopposed by Mr. Giles and supported by
admissible evidence, are accepted as true:
times relevant to his claims, Mr. Giles was incarcerated at
U.S.P. Terre Haute. The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
had promulgated an administrative remedy system, codified in
28 C.F.R. § 542.10, that was in effect at all times
relevant to this case. The administrative remedy process
allows an inmate to seek formal review of a complaint related
to any aspect of his imprisonment. To exhaust his
administrative remedies under this process, an inmate must
first file an informal remedy request through the appropriate
institution staff member (BP-8). If the inmate is not
satisfied with the response to his informal request, he is
required to file his complaint with the Warden (BP-9).
See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14. The deadline for
completion of these two steps is twenty days following the
date on which the basis for the request occurred.
See 28 C.F.R. § 542.14(a).
inmate is dissatisfied with the Warden's response, he may
appeal the decision to the Regional Director (BP-10) within
twenty calendar days of the date the Warden responded.
See 28 C.F.R. § 542.15. Finally, if an inmate
is dissatisfied with the Regional Director's response, he
may appeal to the General Counsel (BP-11). See Id.
Once the General Counsel has responded, an inmate has
exhausted all of his administrative remedies.
administrative remedy requests filed by inmates are logged in
the SENTRY computer database utilized by the BOP to track
such requests. This database was used to review Mr.
Giles's administrative filings. According to the
database, Mr. Giles filed two submissions regarding the
allegations in his Complaint during his incarceration with
Mr. Giles submitted a BP-9 (Remedy # 824951-F1) on June 17,
2015, which was denied on June 24, 2015. He next submitted a
BP-10 (Remedy #824951-R1) on July 27, 2015, but it was
rejected as untimely, as it was filed beyond the twenty-day
deadline. Mr. Giles was instructed to provide verification on
BOP letterhead stating that the untimeliness was not his
instead of doing so, he filed two BP-11s (Remedy #s 824951-A1
and 824951-A2) on August 24, 2015. Both were rejected because
he did not follow the ...