Brown v. Pfister, 1:18-cv-07944

Background

Plaintiff Kenyatta Brown, an IDOC inmate housed in Stateville’s health care unit (cell 158), alleges he discovered a roach in his ear on June 6, 2017 and sued Warden Randy Pfister under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unconstitutional conditions of confinement (Eighth Amendment).
Brown filed an emergency grievance on June 12, 2017; a Warden designee returned it as non-emergency and instructed him to refile through normal grievance channels.
Brown sent the returned grievance to the Administrative Review Board (ARB); the ARB returned it requesting additional documentation (original grievance, counselor response, grievance officer/warden responses). Brown did not resubmit those materials or otherwise complete the grievance process.
Defendant produced undisputed evidence that Stateville contracted regular pest control (monthly sprays in the healthcare unit) and that Pfister did not personally handle Brown’s grievance (a designee did).
Brown’s summary-judgment filings failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1, so the court deemed Defendant’s factual statements admitted to the extent supported by the record.
The court granted summary judgment for Pfister, dismissing Brown’s conditions claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brown exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	Brown thought his grievance was an emergency and that sending it to ARB was proper; he believed final decisions could be appealed to the next level	Brown failed to follow express instructions: Warden’s office told him to refile normally; ARB asked for additional materials; Brown did nothing further	Court held Brown did not properly exhaust; claim barred by PLRA
Whether failure to follow Local Rule 56.1 justified treating Defendant’s facts as admitted	Brown submitted a lengthy pro se response and additional facts but did not respond to each numbered DSOF paragraph with record citations	DSOF complied with LR56.1; Brown’s 56.1 response lacked required specific citations and many asserted facts were unsupported	Court accepted Defendant’s uncontroverted facts supported by the record and considered Brown’s facts only where record support existed
Whether the Eighth Amendment claim had merit	Brown argued the roach infestation amounted to unconstitutional conditions	Pfister argued (alternatively) that pest control measures existed and that Brown’s claim failed on the merits	Court did not reach the merits because of failure to exhaust administrative remedies
Whether Pfister was entitled to qualified immunity	Brown did not press a contrary exhaustion-based defense	Pfister asserted qualified immunity as an alternative ground for summary judgment	Court did not decide qualified immunity after dismissing for failure to exhaust

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (requiring more than metaphysical doubt)
Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (court determines if genuine issue for trial without resolving credibility)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA requires proper exhaustion of administrative remedies)
Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (must file grievances in the place and time required)
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (proper use of prison grievance system requires following prison rules)
Keeton v. Morningstar, Inc., 667 F.3d 877 (district court may accept uncontroverted facts under local rule)
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (burden on defendant to show failure to exhaust)