Case 2:20-cv-00095-JRS-MJD Document 29 Filed 02/08/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 139
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`JUAN FLAGG,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00095-JRS-MJD
`
`
`ROBERT E. CARTER, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiff Juan Flagg, an inmate at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley")
`
`brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth
`
`Amendments during his placement in administrative segregation. The defendants have moved for
`
`summary judgment arguing that Mr. Flagg failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies
`
`as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") before he filed this lawsuit. For the
`
`following reasons, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [22], is DENIED.
`
`I.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that there is no genuine dispute as
`
`to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 56(a). Whether a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely disputed, the party
`
`must support the asserted fact by citing to particular parts of the record, including depositions,
`
`documents, or affidavits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party can also support a fact by showing
`
`that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute or that the
`
`adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B).
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00095-JRS-MJD Document 29 Filed 02/08/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 140
`
`The moving party is entitled to summary judgment if no reasonable fact-finder could return
`
`a verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller, 570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court
`
`views the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable
`
`inferences in that party's favor. Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717 (7th Cir. 2018).
`
`II.
`DISCUSSION
`
`The defendants seek summary judgment arguing that Mr. Flagg failed to exhaust his
`
`
`
`available administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. The PLRA requires that a prisoner
`
`exhaust his available administrative remedies before bringing suit concerning prison conditions.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). "[T]he PLRA's
`
`exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general
`
`circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege excessive force or some other
`
`wrong." Id. at 532 (citation omitted). "Proper exhaustion demands compliance with an agency's
`
`deadlines and other critical procedural rules because no adjudicative system can function
`
`effectively without imposing some orderly structure on the course of its proceedings." Woodford
`
`v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006) (footnote omitted); see also Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804,
`
`809 (7th Cir. 2006) ("'To exhaust remedies, a prisoner must file complaints and appeals in the
`
`place, and at the time, the prison's administrative rules require.'") (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry,
`
`286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)). Thus, "to exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must
`
`take all steps prescribed by the prison's grievance system." Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 397
`
`(7th Cir. 2004). It is the defendants' burden to establish that the administrative process was
`
`available. See Thomas v. Reese, 787 F.3d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 2015) ("Because exhaustion is an
`
`affirmative defense, the defendants must establish that an administrative remedy was available and
`
`that [the plaintiff] failed to pursue it.").
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00095-JRS-MJD Document 29 Filed 02/08/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 141
`
`Throughout their brief in support of summary judgment, the defendants argue only that Mr.
`
`Flagg failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because his grievance log does not show that
`
`he filed any grievance pertaining to his placement in administrative segregation. See dkt. 24 at 7.
`
`In response, Mr. Flagg points out that he did not use the offender grievance process to challenge
`
`his placement in administrative segregation because, under the defendants' policy, classification
`
`decisions are a non-grievable issue. Rather, the policy delineates a separate classification appeals
`
`process, which Mr. Flagg argues he exhausted. See dkts. 26, 27. The defendants filed no reply
`
`addressing Mr. Flagg's arguments.
`
`The Court's review of the policy provided by the defendants reveals that Mr. Flagg has
`
`correctly characterized the policy in his response arguments. See dkt. 23-2 at 3 ("Section B. Matters
`
`Inappropriate to the Offender Grievance Process"). Specifically, the policy lists classification
`
`actions as a "non-grievable issue[]" and states that "a separate disciplinary classification appeals
`
`process is in place for this purpose." Id. Therefore, because the undisputed evidence shows that
`
`the defendants' initial arguments in support of exhaustion are meritless, and the defendants have
`
`filed no reply brief to address Mr. Flagg's response argument that he satisfied the classification
`
`appeals process, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [22], is DENIED.
`
`IV.
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons explained above, the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [22],
`
`is DENIED. Further proceedings will be directed by separate order.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: 2/8/2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00095-JRS-MJD Document 29 Filed 02/08/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 142
`
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`JUAN FLAGG
`121969
`WABASH VALLEY - CF
`WABASH VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
`6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
`P.O. Box 1111
`CARLISLE, IN 47838
`
`Mollie Ann Slinker
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`mollie.slinker@atg.in.gov
`
`Samantha May Sumcad
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`samantha.sumcad@atg.in.gov
`
`
`