Nelson, Antoine v. Stevens, Christopher, 3:18-cv-00238

Background:

Pro se prisoner Antoine C. Nelson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while confined at Green Bay Correctional Institution, alleging First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations by multiple prison staff.
Key claims at issue on defendants’ partial summary-judgment motion: (1) First Amendment retaliation by Capt. Christopher Stevens for allegedly falsely accusing Nelson of putting out a "hit" to get him placed in administrative confinement; (2) First Amendment claim that Lt. Heil monitored Nelson’s phone call with his attorney; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim that defendants Schueler, Kind, Weisgerber, Clements, and Schwochert ignored Nelson’s letters complaining about procedural defects in a disciplinary hearing (Conduct Report 2843714).
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing Nelson failed to exhaust administrative remedies for those three claims under Wisconsin’s Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS) and disciplinary/admin-confinement appeals procedures.
The court applied the federal exhaustion doctrine (42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a)) and Wisconsin grievance/disciplinary rules to determine whether Nelson gave prison officials a fair opportunity to address each alleged wrong.
Ruling (Dec. 19, 2019): the court denied summary judgment as to the retaliation claim against Stevens, but granted summary judgment (dismissed without prejudice) as to the phone-monitoring claim against Heil and the due-process claims against Schueler, Kind, Weisgerber, Clements, and Schwochert.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nelson exhausted a First Amendment retaliation claim against Stevens for allegedly falsely accusing him of putting out a "hit"	Nelson filed ICRS complaints complaining that Stevens threatened/retaliated and falsely accused him; those complaints put officials on notice of the retaliation claim	Defendants contend Nelson failed to raise the issue during administrative-confinement proceedings as required, so the claim is unexhausted	Denied — court found Nelson properly exhausted this retaliation claim through ICRS and defendants did not show failure to exhaust
Whether Nelson exhausted a First Amendment claim that Heil monitored an attorney phone call	Nelson argues related legal-mail complaints exhausted interference with attorney communications generally	Defendants argue Nelson never filed an ICRS complaint alleging phone monitoring, so officials had no opportunity to address it	Granted — claim dismissed for failure to exhaust because complaints raised only legal-mail issues and each complaint is limited to one issue
Whether Nelson exhausted Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims that staff ignored his letters about disciplinary hearing defects	Nelson filed an ICRS complaint that staff ignored his letters and did not respond	Defendants argue the complaint did not alert staff to procedural defects in the disciplinary process or name several defendants	Granted — claim dismissed for failure to exhaust because complaint complained generally about nonresponse and did not put officials on notice of disciplinary-procedure defects (naming defendants not required)

Key Cases Cited

Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (exhaustion requires properly taking each step in administrative process)
Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2005) (follow filing instructions for initial grievance)
Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282 (7th Cir. 2005) (must file necessary appeals)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (exhaustion gives prison officials a fair opportunity to address grievances)
Perez v. Wisconsin Dept. of Corr., 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999) (unexhausted claims must be dismissed)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion is an affirmative defense; defendants bear burden)
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013) (exhaustion satisfied if prison had notice and chance to correct)
Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2019) (exhaustion alerts officials to the problem and affords an opportunity to repair injury)
Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011) (grievance need not identify specific defendants to exhaust)
Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2004) (grievances need not articulate legal theories)
Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2002) (prisoner must alert the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought)