United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
RIGGLEMAN, LEWISBURG U.S. PENITENTIARY, Special Mail-Open
Only in the Presence of the Inmate, LEWISBURG, PA, Shelese M.
Woods UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Senior Judge
Riggleman filed this action on August 7, 2017, contending
that his constitutional rights were violated while he was
incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Terre
Haute, Indiana. Mr. Riggleman claims that the defendants used
excessive force against him and failed to protect him from
the excessive force of their fellow correctional officers.
The defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that Mr.
Riggleman failed to exhaust his available administrative
remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(“PLRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), before
filing this lawsuit.
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). The party seeking summary judgment
“bears the initial responsibility of informing the
district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying” designated evidence which
“demonstrate[s] the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
the moving party has met its burden, the non-movant may not
rest upon mere allegations. Instead, “[t]o successfully
oppose a motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party
must come forward with specific facts demonstrating that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Trask-Morton
v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672, 677 (7th Cir.
2008). “The non-movant will successfully oppose summary
judgment only when it presents definite, competent evidence
to rebut the motion.” Vukadinovich v. Bd. of Sch.
Trs., 278 F.3d 693, 699 (7th Cir. 2002) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).
following statement of material 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 most favorable
to Mr. Riggleman as the non-moving party. See Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150
times relevant to his complaint, Mr. Riggleman was confined
at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) operates an
administrative remedy process. All administrative remedy
requests filed by inmates are logged and tracked in the
SENTRY computer database, which is an electronic record
keeping system utilized by the BOP.
administrative remedy process consists of three steps. To
initiate the process an inmate first submits a BP-9 form to
the warden at his facility. These requests receive an F1
notation in the SENTRY database. If he is dissatisfied with
the response, the inmate can submit an appeal on a BP-10 form
to the regional office. This level of appeal receives an R1
notation in the SENTRY database. Finally, the inmate can file
a BP-11 with the central office. This final appeal receives
an A1 notation in the SENTRY database.
20, 2018, the Bureau of Prisons ran a full SENTRY report of
Mr. Riggleman's administrative remedy requests from
December 26, 2016, the date of the alleged incident, through
August 7, 2017, the date Mr. Riggleman's complaint was
to the SENTRY report, the first form filed by Mr. Riggleman
after the alleged incident was a BP-10 on January 6, 2017.
That form received the remedy number 887950-R1. The form was
rejected because Mr. Riggleman had not first filed a BP-9
with the warden of his facility. Mr. Riggleman next filed a
BP-9 at his facility on February 8, 2017, remedy number
891335-F1, but it was denied because it was unsigned and
February 21, 2017, Mr. Riggleman filed a BP-11 form with the
central office appealing remedy number 887950-R1. This form
was assigned number 887950-A1. It was rejected for the same
reason 887950-R1 had been rejected by the regional office-Mr.