United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
JOSHUA J. OSBORNE, Plaintiff,
WARDEN MICHAEL MEISNER, SANDRA HAUTAMAKI, ANDREW WESNER, CHAD KELLER, MATTHEW FOCHS, JASON RALLS, DEANNA TIMM, COREY HEFT, KIMBERLY JOHNSON, TRAVIS RODER, ANGELA THOMPSON, ELIZABETH HAASE, SHARI KLENKE, and BRIAN SMITH, Defendants.
Stadtmueller, U.S. District Judge
Joshua Osborne, a prisoner, brings this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants, various employees at
Redgranite Correctional Institution, alleging that they
housed him in filthy conditions which led to him suffering a
severe rash and bug bites. (Docket #22 at 2-4). Plaintiff was
allowed to proceed on three claims: “(1) inadequate
conditions of confinement. . .; (2) medical malpractice under
Wisconsin state law . . .; and (3) deliberate indifference to
his serious medical needs[.]” Id. at 5-6.
Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on
November 16, 2017, arguing that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies before filing suit as to the
latter two claims. (Docket #32). The motion has been fully
briefed, and for the reasons stated below, it will be
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the court
“shall grant summary judgment 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); Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910,
916 (7th Cir. 2016). A fact is “material” if it
“might affect the outcome of the suit” under the
applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of fact is
“genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Id. The court construes all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-movant. Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Inc.,
815 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2016).
Exhaustion of Prisoner Administrative Remedies
Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) establishes
that, prior to filing a lawsuit complaining about prison
conditions, a prisoner must exhaust “such
administrative remedies as are available[.]” 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a). To do so, the prisoner must “file
complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time, the
prison's administrative rules require, ” and he
must do so precisely in accordance with those rules;
substantial compliance does not satisfy the PLRA. Pozo v.
McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002);
Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282, 284-85 (7th Cir.
2005). A suit must be dismissed if it was filed before
exhaustion was complete, even if exhaustion is achieved
before judgment is entered. Perez v. Wis. Dep't of
Corr., 182 F.3d 532, 535 (7th Cir. 1999). Several
important policy goals animate the exhaustion requirement,
including restricting frivolous claims, giving prison
officials the opportunity to address situations internally,
giving the parties the opportunity to develop the factual
record, and reducing the scope of litigation. Smith v.
Zachary, 255 F.3d 446, 450-51 (7th Cir. 2001). Failure
to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense
to be proven by Defendants. Westefer v. Snyder, 422
F.3d 570, 577 (7th Cir. 2005).
Wisconsin Department of Corrections maintains an Inmate
Complaint Review System (“ICRS”) to provide a
forum for administrative complaints. Wis. Admin. Code §
DOC 310.04. There are two steps an inmate must take to
exhaust their administrative remedies under the ICRS. First,
the inmate must file an offender complaint with the
Institution Complaint Examiner (“ICE”) within
fourteen days of the events giving rise to the complaint.
Id. §§ DOC 310.07(1), 310.09(6). The ICE
may reject a complaint or, before accepting it, can direct
the inmate to “attempt to resolve the issue.”
See Id. §§ DOC 310.08, 310.09(4),
310.11(5). If the complaint is rejected, the inmate may
appeal the rejection to the appropriate reviewing authority.
Id. § DOC 310.11(6). If the complaint is not
rejected, the ICE issues a recommendation for disposing of
the complaint, either dismissal or affirmance, to the
reviewing authority. Id. §§ DOC 310.07(2),
310.11. The reviewing authority may accept or reject the
ICE's recommendation. Id. § DOC 310.07(3).
if the ICE recommends dismissal and the reviewing authority
accepts it, the inmate may appeal the decision to the
Corrections Complaint Examiner (“CCE”) within ten
days. Id. §§ DOC 310.07(6), 310.13. The
CCE issues a recommendation to the Secretary of the
Department of Corrections who may accept or reject it.
Id. §§ DOC 310.07(7), 310.13, 310.14.
receiving the Secretary's decision, or after forty-five
days from the date the Secretary received the recommendation,
the inmate's administrative remedies are exhausted.
Id. §§ DOC 310.07(7), 310.14.
material facts are as follows. Plaintiff filed one timely
inmate complaint related to his claims in this case. That
complaint, submitted on ...