Annoreno v. Sheriff of Kankakee County

Citations: 823 F. Supp. 2d 860; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114473; 2011 WL 4633092Docket: Case No. 10-CV-2088

Court: District Court, C.D. Illinois; October 4, 2011; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The court ruled on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, granting it in favor of Sheriff of Kankakee County, Sheriff Thomas Dorries, Tina Carpintero, and Amanda Voss. The case involves Plaintiff Brian Annoreno, a federal pretrial detainee, who was in the custody of the Kankakee County Sheriff and housed at the Jerome Combs Detention Center (JCDC) during an incident on April 18-19, 2008, where he alleged he was assaulted by correctional officers Dorries and Carpintero. Following this incident, on April 21, 2008, Annoreno submitted a Sick Call Slip detailing the alleged assault and his injuries. 

The JCDC inmate handbook states that grievances must be submitted on an Inmate Grievance Form, which is then forwarded to administrative staff, while Sick Call Slips are directed to the medical department and not considered grievances. Despite being aware of the grievance process and having filed grievances previously, Annoreno did not submit an Inmate Grievance Form regarding the incident in question.

Procedurally, Annoreno filed a Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 16, 2010, to which the Defendants responded with an affirmative defense of qualified immunity and later argued that his claim was barred under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) due to his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court analyzed the Motion for Summary Judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, determining that summary judgment is warranted if there is no genuine dispute regarding material facts. The court concluded that Annoreno had not exhausted the available grievance procedures before filing the lawsuit, leading to the granting of the Defendants' motion.

The court must evaluate evidence favorably for the nonmoving party while requiring them to provide substantial, competent evidence to counter a motion for summary judgment. Mere allegations or denials are insufficient; the nonmoving party must demonstrate specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. Summary judgment requires the party opposing it to present evidence for each essential element of their case.

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), inmates must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit regarding prison conditions. This requirement is mandatory and aims to allow correctional facilities to address complaints internally, promoting quicker and more economical resolutions. Even if the inmate believes that pursuing administrative remedies would be futile or that the remedies cannot provide the relief sought, they must still comply with the exhaustion requirement.

In this case, the critical issue is whether the Plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies. The Plaintiff acknowledges several facts: the grievance procedure at JCDC requires a written complaint on an Inmate Grievance Form, Sick Call Slips are not accepted for grievances, he was aware of the grievance process, and he did not submit a grievance form regarding the incident in question. These facts indicate that he did not follow the established grievance procedures. The Plaintiff argues that his Sick Call Slip should count as adequate for exhaustion, claiming ignorance of the proper procedures. However, this reasoning does not create a material issue of fact.

Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest the motion for summary judgment, as his statement of material facts lacked any support for his claims. The court reviewed Plaintiff's deposition but found no indication that he was confused about the grievance process or believed he could initiate a grievance with a Sick Call Slip. The only potential support for his claim was his inability to recall receiving a JCDC inmate handbook, which, even if true, does not constitute competent evidence of a lack of knowledge regarding grievance procedures. The undisputed facts show that Plaintiff was aware of grievance forms and had previously filed multiple grievances, indicating he was familiar with the procedures.

Moreover, Plaintiff acknowledged that Sick Call Slips are not accepted in the JCDC grievance process, further confirming his failure to comply with the required procedures. Consequently, under the Seventh Circuit's strict compliance standard for exhaustion of administrative remedies, summary judgment in favor of the Defendants is warranted. 

The court ordered the following: 1) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, resulting in judgment against Plaintiff and termination of the case, with each party bearing its own costs; 2) Plaintiff may appeal within 30 days, with a warning that an unsuccessful appeal may lead to the accumulation of a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The court emphasized the importance of providing a clear factual statement to support opposition to a summary judgment motion, noting that Plaintiff failed to submit required undisputed and disputed facts. The Defendants contested Plaintiff's claims with an affidavit indicating he did receive an inmate handbook upon booking.