United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION, AND
DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge Southern District
Fredrick Graham, an inmate currently incarcerated at the
United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania,
asserts multiple claims based on events that are alleged to
have occurred while he was incarcerated at the Federal
Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana (FCC-TH). The
defendants seek summary judgment as to all claims, arguing
that Mr. Graham failed to exhaust his available
administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit, as
required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Mr. Graham has responded to the
defendants' motion, and the defendants' have
submitted a reply. For the following reasons, the motion for
summary judgment, dkt. 69, is granted.
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 judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Material facts are those that
might affect the outcome of the suit under applicable
substantive law.” Dawson v. Brown, 803 F.3d
829, 833 (7th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation omitted).
“A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists
‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'”
Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609-10 (7th Cir.
2018) (quoting 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. See
Barbera v. Pearson Education, Inc., 906 F.3d 621, 628
(7th Cir. 2018).
substantive law applicable to the motion for summary judgment
is the PLRA, which requires that a prisoner exhaust his
available administrative remedies before bringing a suit
concerning prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);
see Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002).
“[T]he PLRA's exhaustion requirement applies to all
inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general
circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege
excessive force or some other wrong.” Porter,
534 U.S. at 532 (citation omitted).
following statement of facts was evaluated pursuant to the
standard 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.
Graham as the non-moving party with respect to the motion for
summary judgment. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000).
preliminary matter, the Court addresses Mr. Graham's
responses to the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Mr. Graham makes factual assertions in his surreply, but does
not designate supporting admissible evidence.
“Admissibility is the threshold question because a
court may consider only admissible evidence in assessing a
motion for summary judgment.” Gunville v.
Walker, 583 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir. 2009). An unsworn
pleading that is not signed under the penalty of perjury is
inadmissible for purposes of defeating a motion for summary
judgment. See Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 954-55
(7th Cir. 2011); Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655
(7th Cir. 2004). Similarly, the Local Rules of the Southern
District of Indiana require that each fact asserted must be
supported with a citation to admissible evidence.
See S.D. Ind. Local Rule 56-1(e); see also
dkt. 71 (notice providing text of Local Rule 56-1). Because
Mr. Graham's responses are neither affidavits nor
verified, the Court cannot consider the factual allegations
Federal Administrative Remedy Procedure
Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) maintains an
administrative remedy procedure, see 28 C.F.R.
§§ 542.10 et seq., and FCC-TH has
promulgated an Institution Supplement with additional
information. Upon arrival at FCC-TH, an inmate participates
in an orientation that includes an explanation of the
administrative remedy process and instructions on how to use
the law library to access BOP policy and the
inmate submits an administrative remedy request, facility
staff log it into the BOP's electronic record system, the
SENTRY database. Each entry receives a remedy identification
number and includes the inmate's Federal Register Number
and a short description of the request that often contains
abbreviations due to limited space. Through the SENTRY