Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01780/USCOURTS-ca7-24-01780-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 7, 2025*

Decided January 21, 2025 

Before

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge 

JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge

No. 24-1780 

CHALLIE A. GRAY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOHN POOR, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of 

Indiana, Indianapolis Division. 

No. 1:23-cv-00694-MPB-TAB

Matthew P. Brookman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R

Challie Gray, an Indiana prisoner, appeals the judgment against him based on a 

failure to exhaust administrative remedies before suing prison officials under 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. Because Gray did not comply with the prison’s grievance procedures in the 

required manner, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), we affirm. 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record 

adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the 

court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 24-1780 Document: 24 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-1780 Page 2 

We construe the record in favor of Gray, the non-movant. See Williams v. Rajoli, 

44 F.4th 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 2022). While Gray was incarcerated at Pendleton 

Correctional Facility in Indiana, the toilet in his cell began to overflow onto the floor. 

John Poor, a correctional officer stationed nearby, initially ignored Gray’s calls for help. 

Eventually, Poor and another officer, Richard Fleury, opened Gray’s cell door. When 

Gray expressed anger about the situation, Poor remarked that Gray was lucky that he 

had not been “slammed.” Jamie Downs, a third officer, helped Poor and Fleury remove 

Gray from his cell. While escorting Gray, Fleury and Downs broke his left wrist, and 

Downs used a stun weapon on him. Gray was hospitalized after the encounter.

Relevant for this appeal, the Indiana Department of Correction’s grievance policy

consists of three steps, requiring a prisoner to: (1) file a grievance after attempting to 

resolve the issue informally; (2) if the grievance is denied, file an appeal to the warden 

or the warden’s designee; and (3) if the appeal is denied, file a second-level appeal to 

the Department’s grievance manager. See IND. DEP’T OF CORR., ADMIN. P. NO. 00-02-301, 

§ IV. To submit that second-level appeal, the prisoner must check a “Disagree” box on 

the form denying the first appeal, sign the form, and submit it to the grievance 

specialist, who then enters the completed form into a database for the grievance 

manager’s review. Id. § XII.

Gray filed a grievance the day after the incident. After that grievance was denied,

he appealed on December 6, and his appeal was denied on January 25, 2022. According 

to the prison’s records, Gray did not complete the final step of the grievance process by 

appealing that denial to the Department’s grievance manager. There is no record that 

the form was submitted to the grievance specialist.

Gray later brought this suit against Poor, Fleury, and Downs. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983. The officers moved for summary judgment on the ground that Gray had failed 

to exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The officers submitted the 

Department’s records of Gray’s grievances and an affidavit from Pendleton’s grievance 

specialist, who attested to the records’ accuracy. In his response, Gray stated that he did

submit the second-level appeal, but the grievance specialist (who was responsible for 

transmitting the appeal to the grievance manager) did not file it. He purported to make 

this statement “under penalty of perjury” but did not sign or date the declaration. 

The district court granted the officers’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that 

Gray failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not complete the 

second-level appeal. The district court declined to construe Gray’s statement as an 

unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 because Gray failed to sign it; therefore, he 

Case: 24-1780 Document: 24 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-1780 Page 3 

lacked admissible evidence to support his argument that he lacked an “available” 

remedy under § 1997e(a) because of the grievance specialist’s dereliction. 

On appeal, Gray challenges the summary judgment ruling, which we review 

de novo. See Williams, 44 F.4th at 1045. Gray argues that he had no “available” remedy 

because the grievance specialist failed to submit his appeal to the Department’s 

grievance manager as required. See IND. DEP’T OF CORR., ADMIN. P. NO. 00-02-301, § XII. 

Gray correctly observes that a prisoner need not exhaust a remedy that is unavailable,

“such as when ‘prison employees do not respond to a properly filed grievance or 

otherwise use affirmative misconduct to prevent a prisoner from exhausting.’” Williams, 

44 F.4th at 1045 (quoting Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006)). 

But Gray produced no admissible evidence that the grievance specialist failed to 

submit to the grievance manager an appeal that Gray properly filed. Gray does not 

challenge, let alone demonstrate error in, the district court’s decision that his unsigned 

and undated filing was not an unsworn declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746. And no

other evidence in the record supports his assertion that he submitted a second-level 

appeal. We therefore have no reason to reverse the district court’s decision. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-1780 Document: 24 Filed: 01/21/2025 Pages: 3