Gossard v. Warden Madison Correctional Institution, 2:14-cv-01842

Plaintiff Don Gossard, an inmate at Madison Correctional Institution (MCI), sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming defendants (Warden, Mr. Scales, Ms. Ester) failed to protect him from an assault by his cellmate in 2014. The Warden was previously dismissed.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing, inter alia, that Gossard failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA.
Ohio’s inmate grievance process requires (1) an informal complaint within 14 days of the event, (2) a notification of grievance within 14 days of the informal complaint response, and (3) an appeal to the Chief Inspector within 14 days of the last disposition.
Gossard timely filed the informal complaint on March 25, 2014; the informal complaint was denied March 27, 2014. He did not file the notification of grievance until April 14, 2014, which the institution rejected as untimely; the Chief Inspector affirmed.
Gossard contended the Institutional Inspector delayed providing the notification-of-grievance form, causing the late filing; however, he produced no affidavit or specific supporting facts, and Inspector Jarrod Robinson provided a declaration describing his routine processing of kites/forms.
The magistrate judge found Gossard’s delay-excuse conclusory and unsupported, concluded he failed to exhaust available remedies, recommended granting summary judgment for defendants, and denied Gossard’s motion for a ruling on the pleadings (and moot appointment of counsel).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gossard exhausted administrative remedies under the PLRA	Gossard says he followed the grievance steps and was prevented from timely filing the notification form because the Institutional Inspector delayed delivery	Defendants say Gossard missed the 14‑day deadline for the notification form and the record shows the notification was untimely; thus remedies were not exhausted	Court: Gossard failed to exhaust; untimeliness not excused because his delay claim is conclusory and unsupported
Whether the Institutional Inspector's unsworn declaration was admissible	N/A (challenge raised to sufficiency)	Defendants submitted declarations signed under penalty of perjury but not notarized	Court: Declarations signed under penalty of perjury are admissible for summary judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1746; Robinson's declaration was acceptable
Whether defendants carried their burden on summary judgment	N/A	Defendants must show no genuine dispute of material fact regarding non‑exhaustion	Court: Defendants met their burden; no factual dispute that would defeat summary judgment
Whether appointment of counsel should be revisited	Gossard renewed request for counsel	Defendants opposed; court need not address if case resolved on exhaustion	Court: Request denied as moot given recommended grant of summary judgment

Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 368 U.S. 464 (1962) (summary judgment standard and inferences)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (summary judgment burden and view of evidence)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (nonmoving party’s burden after discovery)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue and summary judgment)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (PLRA exhaustion applies to all inmate suits about prison life)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion boundaries defined by prison procedure)
Hartsfield v. Vidor, 199 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 1999) (time limits in grievance process are binding)
Wright v. Morris, 111 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 1997) (grievance must be addressed on merits at each level)
Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (conclusory statements insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must show more than metaphysical doubt)
Peters v. Lincoln Elec. Co., 285 F.3d 456 (6th Cir. 2002) (unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury may be considered)