Elijah Reid v. Marc Balota, 962 F.3d 325

Reid, an Illinois inmate, alleged Officer Marc Balota used excessive force (broke Reid’s hand) and used a racial slur; Reid filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment violation.
Reid filed a standard grievance and also submitted an emergency grievance to the warden on July 28, 2016; the grievance officer logged the standard grievance as received Aug. 2.
The grievance officer returned a memorandum saying “no justification for further consideration” while also noting the matter had been submitted to Internal Affairs and that a response was pending; the warden returned the emergency grievance as “not substantiated.”
Reid appealed to the Administrative Review Board (ARB); the ARB returned his appeal as missing the standard grievance and a Doc. 0047 form (responses of grievance officer and warden) but did not check the box directing resubmission with the requested documents.
With no clear final decision on the standard grievance and conflicting/ambiguous communications from prison authorities, Reid sued about nine weeks after filing the standard grievance; the district court granted summary judgment for the officer for failure to exhaust, but the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Reid exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA given the prison responses	Reid: prison responses were conflicting/obscure, making the administrative process unknowable and thus remedies unavailable	Balota: Reid failed to attach required documents, did not resubmit as ARB requested, and sued before giving the warden time to act	Court: Remedies were unavailable because prison communications were so obscure/opaque that no reasonable next step existed; exhaustion satisfied
Whether ARB’s return required Reid to explain missing documents or resubmit appeal	Reid: ARB’s form did not instruct him to resubmit or explain, so he could not know any further obligation	Balota: ARB indicated missing documents; Reid should have provided/explained the absence	Court: ARB’s failure to check the resubmission box left no clear instruction; Reid could not be expected to guess an unexplained requirement
Whether Reid sued prematurely before the warden’s two‑month response period elapsed	Balota: the warden had up to two months to respond and an Internal Affairs review was pending, so Reid acted too soon	Reid: no indication anyone had issued a decision on the standard grievance; prison’s responses suggested no active processing	Court: Unlike cases where an ongoing investigation was clear, here no final decision or meaningful communication was provided; delay by officials cannot be exploited to bar suit

Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (administrative remedies must be "available;" remedies that are "unknowable" or the scheme is too opaque are not required to be exhausted)
Williams v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 957 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2020) (grievance procedures must be transparent; returned ARB appeals that do not direct resubmission can render remedies exhausted)
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (failure of prison officials to respond can make administrative remedies unavailable)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (prisoners must comply with administrative rules to exhaust remedies)
Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 (7th Cir. 2004) (aspirational timelines do not always permit immediate suit absent clarity that the process is stalled)
Lewis v. Washington, 300 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2002) (courts will not allow officials to exploit exhaustion requirement through indefinite delay)