Jones, Nicholas v. Edge, Beth, 3:16-cv-00848

Plaintiff Nicholas A. Jones, a Wisconsin state inmate, alleges prison staff mistreated his allergy to protein powder and then retaliated when he tried to grieve the treatment.
Specific retaliation claims: (1) Correctional officer Joanne Govier confiscated his grievance and issued a false conduct report; (2) Hearings officer Larry Primmer convicted him on that report and had grievance materials destroyed.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment limited to the retaliation claims tied to the conduct report and asserted Jones failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
Wisconsin’s Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS) bars raising issues related to a conduct report unless the inmate first exhausts the disciplinary process under DOC chapter 303.
The record (unrebutted by Jones) showed Jones did not appeal the disciplinary hearing decision nor file a subsequent procedure-based ICRS grievance; defendants’ factual showing therefore went uncontested.
The court concluded Jones failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA and dismissed the retaliation claims without prejudice; Primmer was dismissed from the suit (these were the only claims against him).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones exhausted administrative remedies for retaliation claims tied to a conduct report	Jones sought to grieve retaliatory confiscation and false report (allegedly); implied that ICRS exhaustion sufficed	Jones failed to appeal the disciplinary conviction and did not pursue a procedure-based ICRS grievance, so he did not follow required exhaustion steps	Court held Jones failed to properly exhaust; retaliation claims dismissed without prejudice
Whether dismissal for failure to exhaust should be with prejudice	(not separately argued)	PLRA requires exhaustion and unexhausted claims are subject to dismissal	Court dismissed unexhausted claims without prejudice (consistent with Seventh Circuit precedent)
Whether defendant Primmer should remain in the case	Jones contended Primmer retaliated by affirming conviction and destroying grievance materials	Defendants showed no exhausted claim remained against Primmer	Court dismissed Primmer from the lawsuit because the only claims against him were dismissed for failure to exhaust
Applicability of ICRS limitations on grievances related to conduct reports	Jones implied ICRS could address the retaliation without exhausting disciplinary appeals	Defendants relied on DOC rules restricting ICRS use for conduct-report-related issues until disciplinary process is exhausted	Court applied the DOC rules and governing precedent to require exhaustion through disciplinary process before ICRS review

Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (requires "proper exhaustion" of administrative remedies under PLRA)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits)
Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir.) (purpose of exhaustion is to alert state and invite corrective action)
Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir.) (prisoner must follow prison rules and properly take each step to exhaust)
Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282 (7th Cir.) (exhaustion requires following time and place rules of the administrative process)
Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395 (7th Cir.) (dismissal for failure to exhaust is without prejudice)