Bernard v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 1:20-cv-05383

Eric Bernard, an inmate with multiple mental and physical disabilities, was confined at Stateville Correctional Facility from May to September 2019.
Bernard filed a federal civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act, related to his treatment and accommodations.
During his four-month stay at Stateville, Bernard submitted dozens of grievances, including 43 emergency and 1 non-emergency grievance, mainly between May and July 2019.
All emergency grievances were denied by the Chief Administrative Officer as non-emergencies; Bernard appealed them to the Administrative Review Board (ARB), but did not resubmit them through the usual process as instructed.
Bernard claimed he was unable to receive grievance responses or further pursue appeals in August and September 2019 due to being on crisis watch or medical furlough, which prevented access to mail or grievance materials.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Bernard failed to exhaust administrative remedies; the court held a Pavey hearing to resolve factual disputes on grievance process availability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bernard exhausted administrative remedies as required by the PLRA	Bernard’s crisis watch and medical furlough made the grievance process unavailable and prevented exhaustion	Remedies were available; Bernard could have sought counselor assistance or dictated grievances	PLRA does not require exhaustion where remedies are unavailable; summary judgment denied
Effect of denied emergency grievances returned by CAO	Emergency grievances were redirected to ARB with explanation; process was unclear	Bernard failed to follow required procedure by not resubmitting to grievance office	Denying as a non-emergency with vague instructions rendered process functionally unavailable
Receipt of grievance responses while on crisis watch	Did not receive responses due to crisis status; unable to timely act	Defendants assert responses were properly sent; Bernard should have proceeded	No proof responses were received; no presumption of receipt applies
Obligation to request or accept assistance with grievances	Bernard requested staff help but received none, and was unaware of offsite options	Defendants argue counselors would have provided help if Bernard asked	Record shows assistance was not, in fact, provided; process unavailable

Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016) (sets out when administrative remedies are unavailable under PLRA)
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (establishes the procedure for resolving exhaustion disputes in PLRA cases)
Wilder v. Sutton, 310 F. App’x 10 (7th Cir. 2009) (availability of remedy is factual, not merely procedural)
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (remedy unavailable if prison staff do not respond)
Hernandez v. Dart, 814 F.3d 836 (7th Cir. 2016) (describes when staff interference makes remedies unavailable)