Carswell v. Neal
3:24-cv-00091
N.D. Ind.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Marven T. Carswell, an inmate, sued Warden Ron Neal in his official capacity, seeking permanent injunctive relief for alleged failure to protect him from other inmates.
- Carswell claimed he was denied protective custody at Indiana State Prison despite making requests.
- Neal moved for summary judgment, arguing Carswell failed to exhaust administrative remedies before suing.
- Prison administrative procedures required Carswell to appeal classification decisions (such as protective custody denial) through a specific Classification Appeals process, not the general grievance process.
- Carswell filed grievances through the wrong process, was told to use the correct procedure, but never did so.
- Carswell did not respond to the summary judgment motion; the court took defendant’s evidence as undisputed and granted summary judgment to Neal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Carswell alleged he sought relief for failure to protect without proper protection. | Neal argued Carswell did not use the required Classification Appeal process before suing. | Court held Carswell failed to exhaust; summary judgment for Neal. |
| Proper use of grievance procedures | Carswell used general grievance forms for protective custody complaints. | Neal presented evidence that only the Classification Appeals process was proper. | Court found Carswell did not follow proper procedure. |
| Notice of proper procedures | Carswell received instructions but did not act on them. | Neal showed staff directed Carswell to the proper process multiple times. | Court credited Neal’s evidence as undisputed. |
| Availability of remedies | No evidence Carswell was unable to use correct process. | Neal showed all remedies were available and unused. | Exhaustion defense established, case dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue of material fact at summary judgment)
- Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999) (district court must dismiss claims not fully exhausted)
- Goodman v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2010) (nonmoving party must present evidence, not just allegations)