Marshall v. Hyatt, 3:20-cv-00811

Plaintiff Shawn Marshall, an inmate, sued Warden William Hyatt in his individual capacity seeking nominal and punitive damages under the First Amendment for alleged restrictions on telephone and mail from July 1, 2020 to mid‑August 2020.
Hyatt moved for summary judgment on the ground that Marshall failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.
Marshall submitted a grievance dated July 9, 2020 about being unable to send mail; the grievance office returned it on July 15 because Marshall failed to list his bunk assignment on the form and instructed him to resubmit within five business days.
Marshall resubmitted a revised grievance on July 28, which the grievance office rejected as untimely because he did not return it within the five business‑day window.
The factual sequence above was undisputed; Marshall argued only that the grievance office improperly rejected his grievance as untimely.
The court concluded the grievance office properly rejected the initial form for incompleteness and properly rejected the resubmission as untimely, found no other relevant grievance was filed, held Marshall failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and granted summary judgment for Hyatt; judgment entered June 15, 2022.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Marshall exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit	Marshall contends the grievance office improperly rejected his July 9 grievance as untimely	Hyatt shows Marshall failed to complete the form correctly and failed to resubmit within the five business‑day deadline	Court held grievance was properly rejected twice and Marshall did not exhaust, so suit was premature and must be dismissed
Whether defendant met his burden to prove failure to exhaust (affirmative defense)	Marshall argued rejection was improper but offered no evidence of a timely, fully completed grievance	Hyatt produced undisputed grievance records showing return for form defect and later untimely resubmission	Court held Hyatt met his burden; absence of exhaustion required dismissal (summary judgment for Hyatt)

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
Heft v. Moore, 351 F.3d 278 (7th Cir. 2003) (construe facts and inferences for non‑movant on summary judgment)
Goodman v. National Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2010) (opponent must present evidence to oppose summary judgment)
Perez v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Corr., 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999) (prisoner suit filed before exhaustion must be dismissed)
King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2015) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense for defendant to prove)
Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (strict compliance approach to exhaustion)
Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion requires following the state's procedural rules)