Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 456
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
`
`
`COREY CROUCH,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-DLP
`
`
`RICHARD BROWN, et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`Corey Crouch alleges that he was held in solitary confinement in multiple Indiana
`
`Department of Correction ("IDOC") facilities from 2016 through 2019. He further contends that
`
`during that time his placement in solitary confinement was not meaningfully reviewed, and he was
`
`forced to live in oppressive and inhumane conditions.
`
`The defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Crouch
`
`failed to exhaust administrative remedies that were available to him before he filed this lawsuit.
`
`For the reasons discussed below, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and
`
`this action is dismissed.
`
`I. Legal Standards
`
`Summary judgment shall be granted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute
`
`as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`56(a). A "material fact" is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit." Anderson v. Liberty
`
`Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine only if a reasonable jury could find
`
`for the non-moving party. Id. If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then there
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 457
`
`is no "genuine" dispute. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). The Court views the facts in
`
`the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the
`
`non-movant's favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634 F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
`
`In accordance with Local Rule 56-1(f), the Court assumes that facts properly supported by
`
`the movant are admitted without controversy unless the non-movant specifically disputes them.
`
`Likewise, the Court assumes that facts asserted by the non-movant are true so long as they are
`
`supported by admissible evidence. S.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(f)(2).
`
`On a motion for summary judgment, "[t]he applicable substantive law will dictate which
`
`facts are material." National Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc., v. Superior Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 262, 265
`
`(7th Cir. 1996) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248). The substantive law applicable to this motion
`
`for summary judgment is the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"), which requires that a
`
`prisoner exhaust his available administrative remedies before bringing a 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." Porter, 534 U.S. 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 Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004) ("In order to
`
`properly exhaust, a prisoner must submit inmate complaints and appeals 'in the place, and at the
`
`time, the prison's administrative rules require.'") (quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 458
`
`1025 (7th Cir. 2002)). "In order 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).
`
`As the movants, the defendants bear the burden of establishing that the administrative
`
`remedies upon which they rely were available to Mr. Crouch. 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."). "[T]he
`
`ordinary meaning of the word 'available' is 'capable of use for the accomplishment of a purpose,'
`
`and that which 'is accessible or may be obtained.'" Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850, 1858 (2016)
`
`(internal quotation omitted). "[A]n inmate is required to exhaust those, but only those, grievance
`
`procedures that are capable of use to obtain some relief for the action complained of." Id. at 1859
`
`(internal quotation omitted).
`
`II. Conditions-of-Confinement Claims
`
`
`
`Mr. Crouch describes the conditions of his confinement extensively in his complaint. See
`
`dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 200–30. Based on these allegations, the Court identified plausible Eighth Amendment
`
`claims at screening. Dkt. 10 at 3.
`
`
`
`The parties agree that the IDOC Offender Grievance Process ("OGP") was an
`
`administrative remedy program through which Mr. Crouch could have sought relief from these
`
`conditions. Neither party asserts that any other administrative remedy program offered Mr. Crouch
`
`relief from the conditions underlying his Eighth Amendment claims.
`
`
`
` The defendants have filed two versions of the OGP that were applicable during different
`
`portions of Mr. Crouch's time in solitary confinement. Dkts. 19-2, 19-3. Because the relevant
`
`provisions of the two versions contain no material differences, the Court cites only the more recent
`
`version, dkt. 19-3.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 459
`
`To exhaust the remedies available through the OGP, an inmate must complete four steps.
`
`See id. at §§ X–XIII. Step 1: Initially, an inmate must attempt to resolve his concern informally by
`
`discussing it "with the staff member responsible for the situation or, if there is no such single
`
`person, with the person who is in charge of the area where the situation occurs." Id. at § X. An
`
`inmate must document his attempt to resolve the complaint informally. Id. He may do so by
`
`completing a "Request for Interview" form. Id.
`
`Step 2: If there is no informal resolution, the inmate must submit a formal grievance on
`
`State Form 45471. Id. at § XI. Within five business days, an Offender Grievance Specialist
`
`("OGS") must either accept and log the formal grievance or reject it for failing to meet eight basic
`
`standards. Id. at § XI(B). If the OGS does not reject the grievance, he must provide a written
`
`response to the inmate within 15 business days. Id. at § XI(C).
`
`Step 3: If an inmate is not satisfied with the OGS's response, he must submit a grievance
`
`appeal written on State Form 45473 to the OGS within five business days after receiving the OGS's
`
`response. Id. at § XII. Within one business day, the OGS must forward the grievance appeal and
`
`all relevant documents to the Warden or his designee for review. Id. The Warden or his designee
`
`must respond within five business days of receipt. Id.
`
`Step 4: If, after receipt of the appeal response, the offender is still dissatisfied, or if no
`
`response is received within the time frame, he may appeal to the Department Offender Grievance
`
`Manager. Id.
`
`IDOC has designated evidence showing that Mr. Crouch did not file a formal grievance or
`
`a grievance appeal. Dkt. 19-4. In response, Mr. Crouch designates the following affidavit
`
`testimony:
`
`4. During my time in the SHU at WVCF, I submitted grievance documents
`relating to the conditions of my confinement, which I received no response to.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 460
`
`5. The grievance documents specifically complained about the bird feces in the
`cages, standing water in the cages, and the showers being dirty.
`
`6. After submitting the grievance documents. I lack personal knowledge of what
`was done with the grievance documents.
`
`Dkt. 23-1. Mr. Crouch provides no information, however, about what grievance documents he
`
`submitted, to whom he submitted them, or when he submitted them.
`
`
`
`Mr. Crouch's affidavit testimony does not create a genuine dispute as to whether he
`
`exhausted the remedies available to him through the OGP. From Mr. Crouch's testimony the Court
`
`could, at best, infer that Mr. Crouch submitted unknown documents at an unknown time during
`
`his 46 months in segregation. This is not sufficient to support the inference that Mr. Crouch
`
`submitted the specific documents required by the OGP, much less that he submitted them in the
`
`time and place required by the OGP. See Dale, 376 F.3d 652 at 655.
`
`
`
`Mr. Crouch argues that his testimony raises a genuine factual dispute because it shows that
`
`"he submitted grievances that were not answered." Dkt. 24 at 10. Mr. Crouch correctly notes that
`
`"prison officials' failure to respond to a prisoner's claim can render administrative remedies
`
`unavailable." Brengettcy v. Horton, 423 F.3d 674, 682 (7th Cir. 2005) (emphasis added). But
`
`Mr. Crouch's affidavit does not support a conclusion that he submitted the materials in the form,
`
`at the time, and at the place that would have obligated the prison staff to respond. Dkt. 23-1; see
`
`Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (evidence that plaintiff completed grievance form
`
`on a specific date and submitted it on a specific date and in a specific location supported conclusion
`
`that he took all necessary steps to exhaust); Brengettcy, 423 F.3d at 682 (evidence that plaintiff
`
`"filed a grievance as early as August 23, 2000, in compliance with CCDOC's internal timetables,"
`
`supported conclusion that plaintiff took all necessary steps to exhaust).
`
`
`
`"To survive summary judgment, there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably
`
`find for the [nonmoving party], . . . and the nonmoving party must point to specific facts showing
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 461
`
`that there is a genuine issue for trial; inferences relying on mere speculation or conjecture will not
`
`suffice." Trade Fin. Partners v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 406–07 (7th Cir. 2009) (citations and
`
`quotations omitted). The Court "must draw inferences in [the non-movant's] favor," but that "'does
`
`not extend to drawing inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture.'" Estate of
`
`Biegert v. Molitor, 968 F.3d 693, 701 (7th Cir. 2020) (quoting Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539
`
`F.3d 724, 732 (7th Cir. 2008)).
`
`Here, Mr. Crouch has not designated evidence refuting defendants' evidence that he did not
`
`file a formal grievance or appeal. Even accepting his testimony as true, no reasonable jury could
`
`find that Mr. Crouch took all the actions necessary to exhaust or that the defendants rendered the
`
`OGP unavailable by failing to respond to his submissions. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The
`
`defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Mr. Crouch's conditions-of-
`
`confinement claims.
`
`III. Solitary Confinement Claims
`
`
`
`The defendants argue that Mr. Crouch had two avenues to challenge his prolonged solitary
`
`confinement—the IDOC Disciplinary Code for Adult Offenders and the Adult Offender
`
`Classification Policy—and that he did not exhaust the remedies available under either.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Facts
`
`In February 2016, Mr. Crouch was housed at Plainfield Correctional Facility ("PCF"). On
`
`February 26, 2016, he pled guilty to committing battery in violation of the Disciplinary Code.
`
`Dkt. 19-10. The hearing officer assessed sanctions, including 120 days in disciplinary segregation.
`
`Id. The hearing officer specifically directed that Mr. Crouch be housed in disciplinary segregation
`
`from February 1 through May 30, 2016. Id.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 462
`
`
`
`Over the following four years, Mr. Crouch was housed under three different classifications
`
`at three different facilities. Mr. Crouch's classification reports indicate that he was placed in
`
`disciplinary restrictive status housing ("disciplinary") on February 2, 2016, pending his
`
`disciplinary hearing. Dkt. 19-8 at 1. On June 29, 2016, a decision was made to transfer Mr. Crouch
`
`to department-wide disciplinary restrictive status housing ("department-wide"). Id. at 12. The
`
`following day, Mr. Crouch arrived at the Westville Control Unit ("WCU"). Id. at 14. On March
`
`30, 2017, Mr. Crouch was transferred again to the Special Confinement Unit at WVCF and
`
`remained in department wide. Id.at 15. On August 10, 2017, he was reclassified to department-
`
`wide administrative restrictive housing ("administrative"). Id. at 24.
`
`
`
`In that four-year period, Mr. Crouch received 35 "Report of Classification Hearing"
`
`("ROCH") documents. Dkt. 19-8. After his transfer to WVCF, Mr. Crouch also received 21 written
`
`reviews of his administrative classification between November 20, 2017 and May 2019. Dkts. 19-
`
`15, 23-2.
`
`Mr. Crouch's ROCHs and classification reviews are summarized in the following table,
`
`beginning with the decision to place him in department-wide:
`
`Document
`Dkt. 19-8 at 12
`Dkt. 19-8 at 14
`Dkt. 19-8 at 15
`Dkt. 19-8 at 16
`Dkt. 19-8 at 17
`Dkt. 19-8 at 18
`Dkt. 19-8 at 19
`Dkt. 19-8 at 20
`Dkt. 19-8 at 21
`Dkt. 19-8 at 22
`Dkt. 19-8 at 23
`Dkt. 19-8 at 24
`Dkt. 19-8 at 25
`Dkt. 19-8 at 26
`Dkt. 19-8 at 27
`
`Classification Action
`ROCH: Transfer to department-wide
`ROCH: Admit to department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`ROCH: Transfer to administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative
`
`Date Approved
`June 29, 2016
`June 30, 2016
`Mar. 30, 2017
`Apr. 6, 2017
`Apr. 12, 2017
`Apr. 18, 2017
`Apr. 28, 2017
`May 3, 2017
`May 10, 2017
`May 19, 2017
`May 24, 2017
`Aug. 10, 2017
`Aug. 23, 2017
`Aug. 30, 2017
`Sept. 6, 2017
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 463
`
`Dkt. 19-8 at 28
`Dkt. 19-8 at 29
`Dkt. 19-8 at 30
`Dkt. 19-8 at 31
`Dkt. 23-2 at 1
`Dkt. 23-2 at 2
`Dkt. 23-2 at 3
`Dkt. 23-2 at 4
`Dkt. 23-2 at 5
`Dkt. 19-8 at 32
`Dkt. 23-2 at 6
`Dkt. 23-2 at 7
`Dkt. 19-8 at 33
`Dkt. 23-2 at 8
`Dkt. 23-2 at 9
`Dkt. 23-2 at 10
`Dkt. 23-2 at 11
`Dkt. 23-2 at 12
`Dkt. 23-2 at 13
`Dkt. 19-8 at 34
`Dkt. 23-2 at 14
`Dkt. 23-2 at 15
`Dkt. 23-2 at 16
`Dkt. 23-2 at 17
`Dkt. 23-2 at 18
`Dkt. 23-2 at 19
`Dkt. 19-15 at 6
`Dkt. 19-15 at 7
`Dkt. 19-8 at 35
`
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in department-wide
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`Review: Remain in administrative.
`ROCH: Remain in administrative.
`
`Sept. 22, 2017
`Oct. 5, 2017
`Oct. 16, 2017
`Oct. 24, 2017
`Nov. 20, 2017
`Dec. 6, 2017
`Jan. 9, 2018
`Feb. 13, 2018
`Mar. 15, 2018
`Mar. 27, 2018
`Apr. 6, 2018
`May 9, 2018
`May 21, 2018
`June 5, 2018
`July 11, 2018
`Aug. 2018
`Sept. 2018
`Oct. 2018
`Nov. 2018
`Nov. 30, 2018
`Dec. 2018
`Jan. 2019
`Feb. 1, 2019
`Mar. 2019
`Apr. 2019
`May 2019
`July 19, 2019
`Aug. 19, 2019
`Sept. 16, 2019
`
`The Classification Policy was in place for the entirety of Mr. Crouch's stay in solitary
`
`
`
`
`confinement. Dkts. 19-11, 19-12, 19-13, 19-14. Throughout that time, the Classification Policy
`
`included a Classification Decisions Appeal Process ("Appeals Process").
`
`
`
`For intra-facility classification decisions, the Appeals Process was initiated when the
`
`inmate received a classification decision from the Supervisor of Classification. Dkt. 19-11 at 1;
`
`dkt. 19-12 at 10; dkt. 19-13 at 10; dkt. 19-14 at 10. Within 10 business days, the inmate could
`
`appeal the decision by submitting a written appeal to the Warden using State Form 9260. Id. The
`
`Appeals Process obligated the Warden to log the appeal and issue a written response to the inmate.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 464
`
`Dkt. 19-11 at 1–2; dkt. 19-12 at 10–11; dkt. 19-13 at 10–11; dkt. 19-14 at 10–11. The Warden's
`
`decision was final. Id. As such, an inmate satisfied his obligations under the Appeals Process when
`
`he submitted his appeal form.
`
`
`
`For inter-facility transfer decisions, the Appeals Process was initiated when the inmate was
`
`informed of the decision by the Supervisor of Classification. Dkt. 19-11 at 2; dkt. 19-12 at 11–12;
`
`dkt. 19-13 at 11–12; dkt. 19-14 at 11–12. Within 10 working days, the inmate could appeal the
`
`decision by submitting a written appeal to the Deputy Commissioner of Operations on State Form
`
`9260. Dkt. 19-11 at 2–3; dkt. 19-12 at 11–12; dkt. 19-13 at 11–12; dkt. 19-14 at 11–12.
`
`
`
`The defendants assert that the Appeals Process is explained to inmates during orientation
`
`when they enter the IDOC. Dkt. 19-6 at ¶ 26. Mr. Crouch does not dispute that the Appeals Process
`
`was in place during his solitary confinement or that he was made aware of the policy upon entrance
`
`into the IDOC.
`
`
`
`No IDOC records show that Mr. Crouch ever submitted a classification appeal that was
`
`received and logged by the Warden. Dkt. 19-6 at ¶ 32. Mr. Crouch attests that he appealed the
`
`ROCH dated May 21, 2018, but never received any response. Dkt. 23-1 at ¶ 11.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Analysis: Disciplinary Code
`
`The Disciplinary Code allows an inmate to "appeal a disciplinary disposition" within 15
`
`days of the disciplinary hearing. Dkt. 19-9 at 1. This process gave Mr. Crouch no avenue to seek
`
`relief from his prolonged solitary confinement. Within 15 days of his disciplinary hearing on
`
`February 26, 2016, Mr. Crouch could have used the Disciplinary Code to appeal his disciplinary
`
`sanction of 120 days in disciplinary. The claims proceeding in this action, though, stem from the
`
`three-and-a-half years Mr. Crouch spent on department-wide and administrative without,
`
`allegedly, any meaningful review of his status. Dkt. 24 at 4 ("Crouch chose not to appeal the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 465
`
`'Report of Disciplinary Hearing' because he pled guilty and agreed that placement in disciplinary
`
`segregation for 120 days was appropriate."). A disciplinary appeal would not have provided an
`
`opportunity to resolve those claims at the prison level.
`
`C.
`
`Analysis: Classification Policy
`
`Mr. Crouch does not dispute the defendant's assertion, dkt. 19-6 at ¶ 26, that the Appeals
`
`Process was in place during his solitary confinement or that he was made aware of the policy upon
`
`entrance into the IDOC. However, IDOC records do not show that Mr. Crouch ever submitted a
`
`classification appeal. Dkt. 19-6 at ¶ 32. Mr. Crouch attests that he "appealed" the ROCH dated
`
`May 21, 2018, "but never received any paperwork back from this appeal." Dkt. 23-1 at ¶ 11.
`
`Afterward, he "wrote a letter to Lt. Nicholson asking why [the] appeal had been denied, but never
`
`received a response to this letter." Id. at ¶ 12. This designated evidence, however, does not create
`
`a genuine factual dispute to defeat summary judgment because it is vague and not specific.
`
`Accepting Mr. Crouch's testimony as true, a reasonable trier of fact could not conclude that Mr.
`
`Crouch "appealed" his May 21, 2018 ROCH by submitting the proper form to the proper official
`
`by the applicable deadline. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Dale, 376 F.3d at 655.
`
`Mr. Crouch argues that the Appeals Process was not available to him as a vehicle for
`
`resolving his complaints about prolonged, unreviewed solitary confinement. He points out that the
`
`Appeals Process does not specifically state that an inmate may challenge his "continued
`
`classification" or "recommendations made by the caseworkers." Dkt. 24 at 4–5. Therefore, Mr.
`
`Crouch argues, a 30-day review amounts only to a caseworker's recommendation and therefore is
`
`not a classification decision subject to the Appeals Process.
`
`
`
`But Mr. Crouch does not dispute that each ROCH was a classification decision appealable
`
`through the Appeals Process. Mr. Crouch received 23 ROCH documents while in department-wide
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 466
`
`or administrative, each of which reports the outcome of a "Classification Hearing" and includes a
`
`box labeled, "Supervisor of Classification: Decision and Basis." Dkt. 19-8 at 1. The Appeals
`
`Process places no constraints on the grounds on which an inmate may base his appeal. Cf. Dole,
`
`438 F.3d at 808–09 ("Exhaustion is necessary even if the prisoner is requesting relief that the
`
`relevant administrative review board has no power to grant, such as monetary damages, . . . or if
`
`the prisoner believes that exhaustion is futile . . . .") (citing Porter, 534 U.S. at 532; Booth v.
`
`Churner, 532 U.S. 731 (2001)). Mr. Crouch has not designated evidence showing that he could
`
`not have asserted in his classification appeal that he was deprived of meaningful review.
`
`
`
`As an example, Mr. Crouch received a ROCH on June 30, 2016, and did not receive another
`
`ROCH until March 30, 2017. Dkt. 19-8 at 14–15. The Appeals Process permitted Mr. Crouch to
`
`appeal the March 30 ROCH. In doing so he could have raised any concerns he had about the
`
`thoroughness of the March 30 ROCH and any concerns he had about the amount of time that
`
`passed between his reviews.
`
`
`
`Mr. Crouch received appealable ROCHs on 23 occasions, including June 30, 2016, and
`
`September 16, 2019. He has not designated evidence showing that he properly appealed any of
`
`them. As a result, he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies, and the defendants are
`
`entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`
`
`The defendants' motion for summary judgment, dkt. [19], is granted. This action must be
`
`dismissed without prejudice. See Ford, 362 F.3d at 401 ("[A]ll dismissals under § 1997e(a)
`
`should be without prejudice."). The clerk is directed to enter final judgment consistent with this
`
`Order and the Screening Entry at dkt. 10.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`11
`
`Date: 7/16/2021
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00159-JPH-MG Document 30 Filed 07/16/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 467
`
`
`Distribution:
`
`Jeffrey R. Cardella
`LAW OFFICE OF JEFF CARDELLA LLC
`jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com
`
`Kyle Christie
`CHRISTIE FARRELL LEE & BELL, P.C.
`kyle@cflblaw.com
`
`Archer Riddick Randall Rose
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`archer.rose@atg.in.gov
`
`Margo Tucker
`INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
`margo.tucker@atg.in.gov
`
`
`12
`
`