Hopkins v. Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility, 2:13-cv-01019

Plaintiff Rodney Hopkins, an inmate, filed a pro se §1983 complaint seeking relief against Wisconsin corrections defendants.
The court screened Hopkins' complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A and §1915A(b) for frivolousness, failure to state a claim, and immunity concerns.
Hopkins alleges medical neglect at Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility in 2008, including COPD, missing medical files, and a delay leading to lung surgery.
The complaint also asserts a denial of access to the courts because his offender complaint was rejected as untimely.
Hopkins attached evidence showing a later May 2013 offender complaint which was also rejected as untimely; the court analyzes exhaustion requirements.
The court ordered dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and ordered fee collection under 28 U.S.C. §1915(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hopkins exhausted administrative remedies for the medical-care claim	Hopkins attempted to cure exhaustion through later complaints and appeals	Exhaustion was required and untimely under ICRS rules	Unexhausted; dismiss for failure to exhaust
Whether Hopkins stated a viable access-to-the-courts claim	Defendants should have addressed merits despite untimeliness	No actual injury shown; untimely complaint precludes access claim	Access claim rejected; not cognizable on these facts
Whether the in forma pauperis status should be granted and the case dismissed	N/A	Dismissal appropriate due to exhaustion failure	Grants IFP; dismisses case for failure to exhaust; fee collection ordered

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1992) (frivolous litigation standard; range of baseless claims)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1989) (frivolous or malicious claims; meritless theories)
Hutchinson ex rel. Baker v. Spink, 126 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 1997) (frivolous or malicious standard in §1915A screenings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard; factual content required)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction of pro se filings)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (inmate medical care constitutional duty)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion as affirmative defense; not required to plead exhaustion)
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion procedures; cure of exhaustion)
Twombly cited case, N/A (N/A) (See Twombly and Iqbal standards above)
Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2010) (district court may dismiss for obvious affirmative defense)
Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion required; timing and filing rules)
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2009) (actual injury requirement for access claim)