Owens v. Duncan, 3:15-cv-01143

Plaintiff James Owens, an Illinois prisoner, sued Lawrence Correctional Center officials claiming inadequate dental care after a June 18, 2015 bone-spur procedure by Dr. Litherland injured his jaw.
Owens filed suit in November 2015; Dr. Litherland moved for summary judgment arguing Owens failed to exhaust prison administrative remedies because his grievance was filed four days late (filed Aug. 21, 2015).
Owens conceded untimeliness but asserted the grievance process was unavailable Aug. 10–17, 2015 due to a lockdown; he testified he sent three written requests to the law library for forms during lockdown and officers refused to provide forms.
At an evidentiary hearing, prison witnesses testified grievance forms were available during lockdown via wing officers, counselors, law-library requests, or paralegal housing rounds; Owens did not ask his counselor for a form and his counselor records showed prior occasions when he had received forms from a counselor.
Magistrate Judge Williams recommended granting summary judgment, finding the remedy was available and Owens failed to diligently seek a counselor-provided form; the district judge conducted de novo review and rejected that recommendation.
The district court held Owens’ remedies were effectively unavailable because his documented attempts to obtain forms from the law library (a prison-acknowledged method) were ignored, and alternatively found good cause to excuse the untimely filing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Owens exhausted administrative remedies before suing	Owens argued grievance process was unavailable during lockdown because officers and the law library refused to provide forms; he filed promptly once out of lockdown	Dr. Litherland argued grievance was untimely under prison rules (filed 4 days late) and Owens failed to follow available procedures (did not ask counselor)	Court held remedies were unavailable because Owens reasonably used law-library requests (an authorized method) and those requests were ignored, so exhaustion requirement satisfied
Whether good cause excuses the late grievance filing	Owens argued he was diligent, followed available procedures, and delay was caused by factors outside his control (lockdown and ignored requests)	Dr. Litherland argued lack of diligence—Owens didn’t ask his counselor during lockdown—so no good cause	Court held good cause existed under Illinois rule: Owens acted reasonably and filed promptly after lockdown; recent Seventh Circuit precedent supports excusal

Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008) (administrative remedies unavailable when officials refuse to provide grievance forms)
Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004) (prisoner need exhaust only available administrative remedies)
Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (prisoner must follow prison grievance procedures)
Hill v. Snyder, 817 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 2016) (prisoner need only make the efforts required by the rule; cannot be held to steps not mandated by policy)
Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2006) (prison cannot benefit from its own directions when inmate follows provided procedure)
Brown v. Croak, 312 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2002) (same principle: prison guidance that inmate follows precludes exhaustion defense)
Mendez v. Republic Bank, 725 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2013) (district court’s de novo review obligation for magistrate recommendations)
Jones v. Smith, 266 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2001) (limited attempts to obtain grievance forms may be insufficient to show exhaustion)