Daniel Schillinger v. Josh Kiley, 954 F.3d 990

On Sept. 17, 2015, inmate Schillinger was threatened in the recreation area by another inmate (Terry); Officers Starkey and Kiley and an unnamed sergeant were present in Delta Unit and discussed a possible “rumble.”
A few minutes later an alarm called for a medical response on Charlie Unit; Schillinger and Terry returned to Charlie Unit where Terry attacked Schillinger, who was beaten for ~8–10 minutes with no staff on the range and suffered severe injuries (skull fracture, lost/chipped teeth, etc.).
Schillinger filed an inmate grievance complaining that there were no officers on the range and that response to his aid was slow; he did not identify the attacker, name Officers Starkey or Kiley, or allege pre-assault threats in the grievance.
The district court screened Schillinger’s pro se complaint and allowed an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim to proceed based on allegations that officers knew of Terry’s threat during recreation and failed to act.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Schillinger failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to that claim; the district court granted summary judgment, finding the grievance did not clearly identify the pre-assault threat-based claim.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it rejected Schillinger’s request to broaden the screened claim to include slow alarm response/failed intervention and upheld the district court’s exhaustion ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the screening order should have included additional failure-to-protect theories based on (a) slow response to an alarm and (b) staff failing to intervene quickly after arrival	Schillinger: complaint plausibly supports alternative grounds (alarm delay and idle staff) against the same officers	Defendants: allegations about the alarm and unnamed “staff” are too thin and do not link these officers to duty to respond or to being the responders	Affirmed: court found those allegations insufficient to plausibly allege liability by Starkey, Kiley, or Matti
Whether Schillinger exhausted administrative remedies for the pre-assault knowledge failure-to-protect claim	Schillinger: pursued grievance through all levels and raised lack of staff/slow response, which was sufficient to exhaust	Defendants: grievance failed to clearly identify the claim that officers knew of a pre-assault threat and failed to protect him	Affirmed: court held the grievance did not give notice of the specific pre-assault-threat theory, so exhaustion failed

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference and substantial risk standard for prisoner safety)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must rise above speculative possibility)
Velez v. Johnson, 395 F.3d 732 (7th Cir.) (officer in control room liable where alleged duty to monitor/respond to cell emergency)
Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646 (7th Cir.) (exhaustion requires notice to prison of nature of the wrong)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA exhaustion serves administrative correction and efficiency)
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (exhaustion satisfied when grievance gives notice and chance to correct)
Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir.) (exhaustion rulings reviewed de novo)
Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.) (screening standard and Rule 12(b)(6) analysis)
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.) (pro se complaints construed liberally)