Ellison v. Maciejewski, 2:23-cv-01447

Deshawn Ellison, an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution, filed a pro se complaint alleging that corrections officer Dylan Maciejewski violated his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to protect him from an assault by another inmate.
The court allowed Ellison to proceed solely on an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim concerning an incident where the defendant allegedly opened Ellison's cell door at the request of another inmate, enabling the assault.
Maciejewski filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting Ellison failed to exhaust administrative remedies required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).
The court set a deadline for Ellison to respond to the summary judgment motion, warning that failure to do so would result in the motion being considered unopposed; Ellison did not respond.
The undisputed evidence indicated that Ellison did not file any inmate complaints regarding the incident and did not appeal the relevant conduct report.
The court granted Maciejewski’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ellison exhausted administrative remedies prior to filing suit	Not explicitly stated; did not respond or submit evidence	Ellison failed to file necessary inmate complaints or appeals regarding this incident	Ellison did not exhaust; summary judgment granted

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion applies to all prison conditions claims)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA requires proper exhaustion)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (defendant bears burden of proof on exhaustion)
Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 (dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice)