Jeremiah v. Nooth, 2:16-cv-00532

Jeremiah, an ODOC inmate at SRCI, brought § 1983 claims arising from three incidents in 2015: (1) Aug. 3 gym incident where he had an episode of diarrhea and officers announced/handled the situation and issued a misconduct charge; (2) Aug. 21 dayroom assault where Jeremiah reported a threat, was struck with a board, and Officer Dotson used pepper spray; and (3) enforcement of an outgoing-mail restriction after a no-contact request from his ex‑wife.
Jeremiah received discipline (7 days segregation + 7 days loss of privileges) for disobeying an order to return to his cell after the gym episode; he later filed grievances about those events.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the PLRA, failure to state claims, and lack of merit on exhausted claims.
The magistrate judge analyzed exhaustion under ODOC’s three‑step grievance process and Ross v. Blake’s unavailability exceptions, then addressed merits (privacy, Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference, First Amendment retaliation, due process for disciplinary hearing, and denial of medical/decontamination care).
The court found many claims unexhausted, several exhausted claims lacked constitutional merit (no privacy/medical‑indifference violation for visible diarrhea; pepper spray use was reasonable; no protected conduct for retaliation), and recommended granting summary judgment for defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether grievances exhausted for gym‑privacy, Eighth, First Amendment claims	Jeremiah contends grievance returned as non‑grievable so exhaustion unavailable	Defendants say grievance process applies and Jeremiah failed to exhaust	Court: process arguably unavailable but claims fail on merits; summary judgment for defendants
Whether defendants failed to protect/used excessive force in dayroom assault	Jeremiah alleges Dotson failed to prevent assault, used pepper spray improperly, and delayed decontamination	Defendants argue Dotson responded, called for backup, and used spray reasonably; grievances often unexhausted	Court: failure‑to‑protect claim against Dotson exhausted but fails (no deliberate indifference); pepper spray and decontamination claims unexhausted or meritless; SJ for defendants
Whether disciplinary hearing denied due process	Jeremiah alleges procedural limits at misconduct hearing	Defendants say sanctions (7 days) did not create atypical, significant hardship	Court: no protected liberty interest; procedural due process claim dismissed
Whether outgoing‑mail restriction and subsequent misconduct exhausted	Jeremiah argues Rule 291‑131‑0021 leaves no administrative review so exhaustion unavailable	Defendants say outgoing‑mail restrictions are grievable through general grievance process	Court: Jeremiah failed to grieve before violating order; exhaustion lacking; claims dismissed

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (visitation/privacy in confinement context)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (proper exhaustion requirements)
Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (when grievance process is effectively unavailable)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference to inmate safety)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (liberty interest/atypical and significant hardship)
Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926 (tolling limitations while exhausting grievances)
Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162 (defendant may obtain summary judgment if undisputed evidence shows failure to exhaust)