Osborne v. Meisner, 2:17-cv-00754

Plaintiff Joshua Osborne, a Wisconsin prison inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging filthy housing conditions caused a severe rash and bug bites; court permitted three claims: inadequate conditions, state-law medical malpractice, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
Defendants moved for partial summary judgment arguing Osborne failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his two medical-related claims before filing suit.
Osborne filed a timely inmate complaint on September 23, 2016 complaining only about being forced to double up in a single cell, sleeping on a mattress on the floor next to a toilet, and bug bites; ICE recommended dismissal and the reviewing authority accepted; his appeal was denied November 21, 2016.
Osborne did not mention medical treatment in that timely ICRS complaint; he pointed to other informal complaints, health service requests, and an information request to a deputy warden asserting his rash/bites were visible.
He later filed (Nov. 22, 2017) a separate inmate complaint about medical care in Sept. 2016, but it was rejected as untimely under the ICRS and the rejection was affirmed.
The court found Osborne failed to follow the ICRS procedures to raise his medical claims prior to filing suit; procedural exhaustion is mandatory under the PLRA, so the medical claims could not proceed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Osborne exhausted administrative remedies for his medical malpractice and deliberate indifference claims before filing suit	Osborne argued his visible rash/bug bites and informal complaints (HSU requests, information requests, verbal notices) put officials on notice and amounted to exhaustion or substituted for ICRS use	Defendants argued Osborne did not use the ICRS to raise medical issues timely and thus failed to exhaust available administrative remedies under the PLRA	Court held Osborne did not exhaust: timely ICRS complaint raised only housing conditions, not medical claims; informal communications do not replace required ICRS process; untimely complaint was rejected and cannot cure the deficiency

Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (PLRA requires strict compliance with prison grievance procedures)
Perez v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 182 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 1999) (suit filed before exhaustion must be dismissed even if exhaustion occurs later)
Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (procedural defects in grievances, like untimeliness, can constitute failure to exhaust when relied upon by administrators)
Westefer v. Snyder, 422 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 2005) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense for defendants to prove)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard)