Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MG Document 35 Filed 12/10/21 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 446
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`KEITH MUNDEN,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MG
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`Plaintiff Keith Munden, by counsel, initiated this action alleging multiple constitutional
`
`violations arising from his long-term placement in administrative segregation at Wabash Valley
`
`Correctional Facility. Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment on all claims other
`
`than Mr. Munden's due process claims due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies as
`
`required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). Dkt. 26. Mr. Munden concedes in his
`
`response brief that he did not fully exhaust his administrative remedies for these claims, and he
`
`opposes the Defendants' motion only with respect to his deliberate indifference claim against Dr.
`
`Michael Shamalov. For the reasons below, the Defendants' motion, dkt. [26], is GRANTED.
`
`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MG Document 35 Filed 12/10/21 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 447
`
`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).
`
`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.
`BACKGROUND
`
`The material facts here are not in dispute. The Indiana Department of Correction ("IDOC")
`
`has a multi-step grievance process available to inmates as Wabash Valley Correctional Facility.
`
`Dkt. 27 at 8. Inmates may use the grievance process to raise issues about the conditions of their
`
`confinement, including the availability of medical or mental health treatment. Id. At all relevant
`
`times, the grievance process was available to Mr. Munden, but he did not file any grievances
`
`related to any alleged lack of medical treatment. Id.
`
`Throughout his confinement, Mr. Munden was unaware that Dr. Shamalov, a healthcare
`
`provider at Wabash Valley, had made a series of entries in his medical chart that were identical or
`
`substantially similar to the following entry:
`
`Met with offender at his cell door for routine 30-day psychological
`evaluation/mental status monitoring due to ongoing placement in WVS – SCU.
`Offender was informed that he could have meeting in more private setting at
`holding cell or visiting booth of SCU on this day or in the future. Offender reported
`he was doing alright at this time and declined to meet in private. He did not report
`any current mental health concerns.
`
`There are no observed signs or reports of current or recent functional impairment
`related to a mental illness. Cell neatness and hygiene were within the normal range.
`Custody officers voiced no specific recent problems with the management of this
`offender. He appears to be managing in the restricted housing environment
`satisfactorily. There are no apparent mental health contraindications for continued
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MG Document 35 Filed 12/10/21 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 448
`
`placement in SCU environment and no apparent need for mental health treatment
`at this time.
`
`
`Dkt. 33 at 3 (quoting dkt. 17, ¶ 248). Mr. Munden only learned Dr. Shamalov's identity after
`
`initiating this lawsuit, conducting discovery, and reviewing his medical records. Id.
`
`III.
`DISCUSSION
`
`The defendants seek summary judgment arguing that Mr. Thompson 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. Thompson, 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.").
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MG Document 35 Filed 12/10/21 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 449
`
`Here, the undisputed evidence shows that the grievance process was available to Mr.
`
`Munden and that he failed to pursue a grievance related to any serious medical need that would
`
`support a claim of deliberate indifference against Dr. Shamalov. This failure is fatal to his claim.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Thomas, 787 F.3d 847.
`
`To the extent that Mr. Munden argues that he should be excused from the exhaustion
`
`requirement of the PLRA because he did not know Dr. Shamalov's identity prior to filing suit and
`
`did not know that Dr. Shamalov had made entries in his medical chart claiming to have observed
`
`and assessed Mr. Munden's psychological health, such arguments are irrelevant to the Court's
`
`inquiry. The PLRA does not require that Mr. Munden identify Dr. Shamalov by name. See Jones
`
`v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218-19 (2007) (finding that the PLRA does not require that a plaintiff's
`
`grievance identify a defendant by name). Rather, the PLRA only requires that Mr. Munden exhaust
`
`the grievance process with respect to the "wrong" he claims to have experienced, Porter, 534 U.S.
`
`at 532, namely a lack of treatment for an alleged serious medical need. The undisputed evidence
`
`shows that he failed to do so.
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Munden has failed to exhaust his available
`
`administrative remedies with respect to all but his due process claims against the Defendants.
`
`Accordingly, all other claims are dismissed without prejudice. Ford, 362 F.3d at 401 (7th Cir.
`
`2004) (holding that "all dismissals under § 1997e(a) should be without prejudice.").
`
`IV.
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons explained above, the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment,
`
`dkt. [26], is GRANTED. This action shall proceed with Mr. Munden's due process claims against
`
`the Defendants. All other claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No partial
`
`judgment shall issue.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00107-JPH-MG Document 35 Filed 12/10/21 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 450
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Distribution:
`
`All Electronically Registered Counsel
`
`5
`
`Date: 12/10/2021
`
`