Loza v. Josephson, 1:16-cv-08111

Santos Loza Jr., a pretrial detainee at Will County Adult Detention Facility (WCADF), was housed in L‑Pod from Sept. 8, 2010 to Aug. 25, 2015 and alleges prolonged denial of natural light and outdoor/exercise access.
WCADF maintained a written grievance process in an Inmate Handbook requiring use of an Inmate Request Form within 48 hours of the complained-of occurrence.
Loza received and understood the Handbook, had access to request forms and the law library, and was not prevented from filing grievances.
Loza submitted his first grievance about the lighting and outdoor-recreation conditions on July 20, 2015—after nearly five years in L‑Pod; the grievance was denied on the merits, not returned as untimely.
Warden Josephson moved for partial summary judgment arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the bulk of Loza’s multi-year claim because the grievance deadline limited exhaustion to 48 hours before filing.
The court denied the motion, concluding Loza’s claims allege a continuing violation and his July 20, 2015 grievance exhausted the entirety of the ongoing conditions claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Loza exhausted administrative remedies for his entire multi-year conditions claim	Loza argues a single grievance about an ongoing conditions problem gives notice and exhausts the entire continuing violation period	Josephson argues the 48‑hour grievance rule limits exhaustion to incidents within 48 hours before the July 20, 2015 grievance (i.e., only ~38 days)	Court held Loza exhausted the entire continuing violation; grievance reaches both forward and backward under Seventh Circuit law
Whether the jail’s decision to address the grievance on the merits waives a timeliness defense	Loza contends WCADF’s decision to resolve the grievance on merits constitutes waiver of untimeliness	Josephson did not rely on the procedural-default waiver theory for the entire claim (conceded partial exhaustion forward)	Court acknowledged the waiver principle but rested decision on the continuing-violation doctrine instead

Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013) (a grievance about an ongoing prison condition may exhaust claims both forward and backward)
Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2016) (exhaustion must comply strictly with facility procedures)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2006) (unexhausted claims are procedurally barred)
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (prisoners’ untimely filings are considered exhausted only if administrators explicitly rely on the procedural defect)
Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (a single grievance can be sufficient to provide notice and opportunity to correct ongoing unconstitutional conditions)