Lonas, Dessie v. Hoftiezer, Scott
3:16-cv-00752
W.D. Wis.Jul 1, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Dessie Russell Lonas, a Wisconsin inmate, sues prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment denial/delay of medical care for a broken nose and a hernia.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Lonas failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the DOC Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS).
- DOC grievance-history report initially showed no grievances about the nose or hernia, but Lonas submitted copies of three rejected grievances and another grievance (OSCI-2017-4918) potentially about his medical issues.
- The court treated exhaustion as an affirmative defense and ordered defendants to reply addressing the missing/rejected grievances and the ’4918 grievance; a hearing may follow if factual disputes remain.
- Lonas renewed a motion for appointed counsel (now showing three attorneys declined); the court denied it, finding the case may be resolved on exhaustion and is not yet shown to be too complex for a pro se litigant.
- Court addressed related matters: denied broader stay of discovery, directed defendant-addition (Erin Leitz) to caption, denied adding the State of Wisconsin as a § 1983 defendant, and ordered defendants to respond about Lonas’s ability to obtain outside medical records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Lonas says he filed multiple grievances about nose and hernia, including three rejected ones and grievance OSCI-2017-4918 | DOC report shows no grievances about the nose or hernia; thus Lonas did not exhaust | Court refused to grant summary judgment yet; ordered defendants to reply re: the rejected grievances and ’4918; may hold a hearing if disputes persist |
| Appointment of counsel | Lonas cannot litigate pro se and has had three attorneys refuse representation | Defendants oppose, arguing no requirement to appoint counsel; case may not be complex | Motion denied: Lonas now shows three refusals but court finds case not clearly too complex and exhaustion may resolve case |
| Law-library access | Lonas asserts limited library access hampered litigation | Defendants say OSCI maintains mostly normal hours and Lonas gets at least 40 minutes/day; extra time is available on request | Court declined to order relief; finds record of many filings undermines claim of prejudice; advised Lonas to request extra time if needed |
| Access to outside medical records / addition of Doe defendant | Lonas says prison blocked contact with outside surgeon and needs those records; seeks to substitute/name Erin Leitz for Doe and add State | Defendants did not yet explain the specific grievances or record availability; state not a person under § 1983 | Court ordered defendants to respond about outside-records access; added Erin Leitz to caption and gave state time to accept service; denied motion to add State as a defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion requires "proper exhaustion" under prison rules)
- Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002) (exhaustion requirement is mandatory for prisoner suits)
- Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir.) (a prisoner must properly take each step in the administrative process)
- Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282 (7th Cir.) (grievance must be filed in the place and time prison rules require)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; defendant bears the burden to prove failure to exhaust)