NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals

For Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois Submitted May ^[*]

Decided May MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. Appeal United States District

JOSEPH HOBAN, Court Central District Illinois. Plaintiff Appellant CV v .

TERRI ANDERSON, et al., James E. Shadid,

Defendants Appellees. Chief Judge .

O R D E R

Joseph Hoban, Illinois prisoner, officials three claims: first, they subjected unlawful while segregation; second, they ignored needs, segregation; third, they failed serious threat safety *2 he left segregation. judgment defendants. It some barred, others were administratively unexhausted, and another claim, he presented insufficient evidence from which jury reasonably find liability. affirm in respects. Hoban arrived Pontiac Correctional Center in September he injured and threatened members of Kings gang other prisons. At Pontiac he briefly received protective custody. About nine months he arrived there, though, Hoban was guilty assaulting another inmate named Echols, who believed was member Kings. Hoban was punished with disciplinary segregation six months, took out custody.

During first twelve days in segregation, experienced problems. reports feces and blood walls and mattress, was “stiflingly” hot, and running water, necessitating he drink water from toilet. As result conditions, he says, he “broke out with some rashes” and experienced nausea, vomiting, dehydration. suffers bipolar disorder and depression; although received medications conditions, receive several medications—antacids, painkillers, medicated shampoo. responded with two grievances in this case. In this complained about conditions confinement, inability receive medicines, conviction assaulting Echols. After twelve days this cell, was transferred segregation cell, where, “[e]verything worked it was very clean.” About three weeks later Pontiac’s warden, Randy Pfister, denied grievance. appealed, but Administrative Review Board rejected appeal. (With this decision September claims.)

While still segregation, grievance. In it sought return custody upon release segregation. request supported counselor, lieutenant reviewed grievance, Edward it be denied. reasoned “paranoia” created “a security concern housed [protective unit]” fight Echols “not indicative inmate need protection.” accepted recommendation denied appealed decision Board. *3 No. ‐

Hoban wait the review process second grievance to conclude before complaint suit, which principally raised failure to ‐ protect claims. He alleged that, by denying him custody, Pfister and named prison administrators deliberately indifferent to safety. screened the 1915A(b)(1) and dismissed it. Hoban appealed, and we vacated had pleaded plausible claims, overlooked court, unnamed correctional officers. See Godinez WL at *2–3 Nov. 6, that, since Latin King members attacked gave a named defendant (Terri Anderson) a list their names, her go forward. id. at *3–4. meanwhile finished pursuing at prison second grievance, had raised failure protect assertions. At hearing before Board, gave Board’s chairperson, Sherry Benton, a list names Latin King who, “tried murder” photos “bloody” body had attacked Latin King members Cook County Jail. Benton nonetheless Anderson she uphold denial Hoban’s grievance requesting As Benton explained, had no declared enemies file; prisoners declared enemy; found “sufficient verifiable information warrant Protective Custody placement”; guilty attacking Echols, a Kings member. Anderson accepted recommendation repeated reasons denying February 2012.

After denied, returned general population. shared Michael Pinon, a Hells Angel member self ‐ proclaimed hit man Kings. Pinon became cellmate, warned gallery officer put same cell, but she disregarded warning. According Hoban, during night their cell, Pinon “lunged” him, starting fight resulted “[s]ome scratches” Hoban, “nothing serious.” next morning reported fight guard moved cell. December restated Anderson added Vilt. recall, recommended, *4 ‐ putting in custody. also for exhibiting deliberate indifference his medical needs while was in disciplinary segregation. In addition brought ‐ against Benton, filed his complaint. Finally added new claims who, rebuffed his complaints about the disciplinary segregation cell’s “inhumane conditions.”

The district court the motion favor of defendants. Regarding the conditions ‐ of ‐ confinement medical ‐ indifference claims the the court ruled them untimely the applicable two year statute of limitations. The court ruled that did exhaust his administrative on his ‐ ‐ claims the defendants, than Benton, because filed his the Board completed its grievance proceedings. And the court that establish triable question on the merits Benton.

On appeal first raises two arguments about timeliness of the conditions confinement medical ‐ indifference claims that maintains on appeal. These claims first appeared filed December 11, According him, accrual date for these claims should have February (when second grievance exhausted). wrong. district court correctly used September 13, 2011, date grievance. That grievance raises complaints about conditions segregation inability receive some medicines. those claims ended tolling statute limitations occurred during grievance process triggered two year time limit sue. Gomez Randle 859, By contrast focused request Because these newly stated claims December filing deadline claims September correctly claims barred.

Second, contends erred granting equitable tolling claims. asserts recruited lawyer “abandon[ed]” about eight months accrued. But attorney’s neglect does warrant tolling statute limitations complying deadline attributable “extraordinary circumstance” outside “control.” Menominee Indian Tribe *5 16 1246 5 Wis. v. United States , 136 S. Ct. 756 (2016). Tolling statute limitations based on his attorney’s negligence would render limitation meaningless. See Williams v. Sims , F.3d (7th Cir. next challenges grant to Benton on his claim

that she deliberately indifferent threat Latin King members. He points affidavit stating that he gave her a list King inmates “tried murder” showed her pictures “bloody” body attacks by gang at Cook County Jail. Based on evidence, he asserts that a jury reasonably could find that Benton knew that he faced a substantial risk serious harm. is incorrect because declared affidavit that King inmates list were at Pontiac Correctional Center (where is incarcerated); they are housed at Stateville Menard Correctional Centers. Hoban’s list hostile inmates at prisons too vague threat safety at Pontiac reasonable factfinder conclude that Benton “actual knowledge impending harm” him. Dale v. Poston , F.3d (7th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). See Davis v. Scott , F.3d 446–47 (8th Cir. 1996) (jury reasonably conclude officials exhibited deliberate by returning prisoner “the general population” when “the [his] enemies list were longer incarcerated” prison). finally argues exhausted claims defendants, relying Barnes Briley , F.3d 2005) . understands Barnes say that, even if prisoner does exhaust claims original complaint, may properly consider them an amended as long as amended complaint contains an exhausted claim. correctly concluded 1997e(a) barred Hoban’s claims Anderson Pfister those claims were administratively exhausted when brought original complaint. misreads Barnes , held only when filing amended prisoner may bring newly discovered filing original administratively complaint’s filing. Barnes All facts regarding failed provide known complaint. Moreover exhaust Anderson complaint. Because “time barred prison’s policy *6 6 further pursuing administrative for events, do nothing cure failure exhaust.” Hill v. Snyder , F.3d (7th Cir. 2016).

That brings us problem district court summary judgment Vilt exhaustion grounds for failure protect claim even though did ask for relief. Ordinarily, before enters summary judgment plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled chance present evidence arguments why trial is needed. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , U.S. (1986); Hotel Mezz Lender LLC Nat’l Ret. Fund But fatal flaw protect claim Vilt same as applies failure ‐ claim Pfister: knew receiving custody, yet remedies. gives us reason appeal believe did know Vilt or analysis any unexhausted Pfister. Therefore commit reversible error granting Vilt.

AFFIRMED.

[*] have agreed decide case without oral argument briefs record adequately present facts legal arguments, oral argument would significantly aid court. F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).