Slip Opinion
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Jackson was jailed at Cook County DOC after a weapons charge; he alleges correctional officers used excessive force on August 14, 2013, fracturing his jaw and denying medical care.
- Jackson filed an internal grievance on August 20, 2013; the response (signed September 5) stated the matter was referred to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for investigation and did not indicate sustained/denied.
- Jackson did not appeal the response because he reasonably understood the referral to OPR to be an ongoing investigation; the inmate handbook did not disclose that an OPR referral required an appeal to exhaust.
- Jackson was acquitted and released on October 10, 2013; two weeks later he was rearrested on an unrelated charge and rebooked into Cook County Jail on October 28, 2013.
- Jackson’s counsel filed this §1983 complaint on October 28, 2013 at 2:40 p.m., after Jackson’s rearrest earlier that day but before he was booked into the county jail; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing PLRA exhaustion failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA before filing suit | Jackson contends his grievance was pending before OPR and he reasonably awaited its outcome; he lacked notice that an appeal was required | Defendants contend Jackson had to appeal the response referring the grievance to OPR and thus failed to properly exhaust | Court: Defendants failed to prove remedies remained available or that Jackson’s inaction constituted non-exhaustion; denial of summary judgment |
| Whether a person in booking/bond-setting process is a "prisoner" under §1997e(h) for PLRA purposes | Jackson argues he was released between incarcerations and thus PLRA doesn’t apply when complaint was filed; even if in custody during booking, remedies tied to earlier incarceration were not necessarily available | Defendants argue Jackson was in custody on Oct 28 and thus a prisoner required to exhaust | Court: Unclear that booking-stage detainees had exhaustion duties for prior grievance; regardless, defendants didn’t show grievance procedures were available after release, so summary judgment denied |
| Whether referral to OPR constitutes a final adverse action triggering an appeal requirement to exhaust | Jackson argues referral is not a denial and gives a detainee choice to wait for OPR or appeal; handbook does not inform inmates that OPR referral requires appeal | Defendants point to internal policy and an affidavit asserting OPR participation does not satisfy exhaustion | Court: Reasonable for inmate to await OPR results; absent notice in handbook, referral did not make appeal an obvious required step |
| Whether defendants met their burden to prove nonexhaustion | Jackson: exhaustion was not available or clearly required post-release | Defendants: assert nonexhaustion but presented no evidence that the grievance could be revived after release or that OPR proceeded | Court: Defendants bear burden and failed to show administrative remedies were available after release; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA exhaustion promotes administrative resolution before suit)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (defendants bear burden to prove failure to exhaust)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (availability of administrative remedies is question-dependent)
- Witzke v. Femal, 376 F.3d 744 (Seventh Circuit on opportunity costs after release)
- Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (Seventh Circuit: strict compliance with grievance rules)
- Kerr v. Puckett, 138 F.3d 321 (released persons not prisoners under §1997e(h) for PLRA)