Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Robert Carl Johnson

Pendleton, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Andrea E. Rahman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Carl Johnson,

Appellant-Plaintiff,

v.

Corrections Officer Captain 

Blattner, et al.,

Appellees-Defendants.

August 20, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A05-1711-PL-2840

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Angela Warner 

Sims, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C01-1507-PL-87

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 2 of 9

Case Summary

[1] Robert Carl Johnson (“Johnson”) appeals the trial court’s grant of summary 

judgment to State Defendants, Corrections Officer Captain Blattner and 

Corrections Officer Schell (“the State”). Johnson raises one issue on appeal, 

which we restate as follows: whether the trial court erred in granting the State

summary judgment because Johnson failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies before filing a lawsuit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e (“PLRA”).

[2] We reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Johnson is serving a forty-nine year and eleven-month sentence for robbery at 

the Department of Correction’s (“DOC”) Correctional Industrial Facility 

(“CIF”). On July 28, 2015, he filed a complaint in Madison Circuit Court 

alleging the State violated his right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment to 

the U.S. Constitution and his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth 

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when two correctional officers performed 

a search of his cell and his person four times within the span of seven days, 

contrary to their treatment of other offenders. The State moved to dismiss the 

suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and the trial 

court granted that motion. Johnson appealed, and, on December 26, 2016, a 

panel of this court affirmed the dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim but 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 3 of 9

reversed the dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment claim and remanded the 

case. Johnson v. Corr. Officer Captain Blattner, No. 48A02-1602-PL-285, 2016 WL 

7333630, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[4] On remand, on February 23, 2017, the State filed a motion for summary 

judgment on the grounds that Johnson failed to exhaust his administrative 

remedies before filing his complaint, in violation of the PLRA. On March 3, 

Johnson filed a motion for partial summary judgment, contending that he 

exhausted his administrative remedies to the extent allowed by the State. Both 

parties designated evidence in support of their motions and the trial court held a 

hearing on those motions on August 17, 2017. 

[5] The parties’ designated evidence was as follows. On January 9, 2015, Johnson 

filed an Offender Grievance on State Form 45471—grievance number 86162—

in which he complained that CIF officers had searched his cell and his person 

through strip searches that included anal cavity searches for “four days straight 

almost[,]” in violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 

the United States Constitution. Appellees’ App. at 97. He indicated that he 

had been unable to resolve the issue informally because there was no one 

available at the time to take his complaint. Id. On January 12, 2015, the State 

received Johnson’s grievance and responded to it with a denial entitled 

“Offender Grievance Response Report.” Id. at 98. On February 6, 2015, 

Johnson filed with the State a “Request for Interview,” State Form 36935, in 

which he requested “a copy of [his] grievance appeal.” Id. at 100. On February 

9, Johnson submitted to the State an “Affidavit of Mailing” in which he swore 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 4 of 9

that he had filed his appeal regarding grievance number 86162 on January 13, 

2015, but had not yet received any response. Id. at 93; State’s Br. at 10. Along 

with his appeal, Johnson had sent the State a copy of the January 12 Offender 

Grievance Response Report, but he did not sign or date the bottom of that 

document. Id. at 91. 

[6] On December 26, 2016, Johnson filed with the State a “Request for Access to 

Public Record” in which he requested copies of “all and any records pertaining 

to grievance # 86162.” Id. at 95. On January 12, 2017, Johnson filed another 

“Request for Interview,” State Form 36935, in which he again requested copies 

of “his grievance and its appeal under grievance number #86162.” Id. at 99. 

On January 20, Johnson filed another “Request for Interview” form in which 

he notified the State that, although he had received a copy of the formal 

grievance regarding grievance number 86162, he had not received a copy of the 

“appeal paperwork” for that grievance. Id. at 96. He requested any written 

receipt the State might have that indicated it had sent the appeal paperwork 

“‘down State’ to D.O.C.” Id. The State responded to the January 20 request as 

follows: “You never appealed this grievance[,] Sir[,] so there would be no 

appeals, receipts, etc.” Id. 

[7] In support of its summary judgment motion, the State designated an affidavit 

from the CIF Offender Grievance Administrator which stated in relevant part, 

“Johnson did not file a formal appeal of the grievance ... on the matter related 

to searches in early January of 2015.” Id. at 44. The State also designated 

CIF’s “History of Grievances” for Johnson, a grievances log which indicated 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 5 of 9

that Johnson filed formal grievance number 86162, received on January 12, 

2015, regarding searches and use of restraints but did not reflect that Johnson 

ever filed a formal appeal of the denial of that grievance. Id. at 79.

[8] DOC grievance procedures are governed by policy number 00-02-301, titled 

“Offender Grievance Process,” of the DOC’s Policy and Administrative 

Procedures Manual. Id. at 47-76. Under this policy, the

Offender Grievance Process consists of three steps: (1) an 

informal attempt to solve a problem or address a concern, which 

can be followed by (2) submission of a written form setting out 

the problem or concern and other information, and the response 

to that submission, which can be followed by (3) a written appeal 

of the response to a higher authority and the response to that appeal.

Id. at 51 (emphasis added). A grievance is defined as a written complaint 

submitted on State Form 45471, and an appeal is defined as “[a] request for 

review of a facility-level response to a grievance by the Department Offender 

Grievance Manager.” Id. at 48-49. 

[9] After an offender has filed a grievance and received a grievance response with 

which he disagrees, the offender has a right to appeal the response within ten 

working days of receiving it. Id. at 69. 

The original grievance, any grievance response, and any other 

information submitted with the original grievance must be 

included with the appeal.

Staff receiving the appeal shall forward it to the Executive 

Assistant within one (1) working day after receiving it. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 6 of 9

Executive Assistant shall indicate the date he or she received the 

appeal and shall generate a receipt for the appeal. The receipt shall be 

given to the offender within one (1) working day from the date the 

appeal is logged. The Executive Assistant shall log the appeal and 

determine whether all pertinent information is included. If the 

appeal is complete, the Executive Assistant or designee shall scan 

all of the pertinent information relating to the grievance and 

appeal into the Offender Grievance System and send all of the 

information to the Department Offender Grievance Manager 

electronically. 

Id. (emphasis added). The Grievance Manager then makes a final decision 

within twenty working days of receiving the appeal from the Executive 

Assistant and informs the Executive Assistant of the decision. As the last step 

in the offender grievance process, the Executive Assistant must then provide 

that final decision to the offender within two working days of receiving it from 

the Grievance Manager.

[10] On October 19, 2017, the trial court granted the State’s motion for summary 

judgment. Johnson now appeals that order.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Johnson maintains that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment1to 

the State. Our standard of review for summary judgment is well settled. When 

 

1

 Summary judgment is a permissible vehicle to address a plaintiff’s alleged failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. See Jackson v. Wrigley, 921 N.E.2d 508, 513 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 7 of 9

reviewing a grant or denial of summary judgment, we apply the same standard 

as the trial court. Holmes v. Celadon Trucking Serv. of Ind., Inc., 936 N.E.2d 1254, 

1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 

The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of 

making a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of 

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as 

a matter of law. Once these two requirements are met by the 

moving party, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to 

show the existence of a genuine issue by setting forth specifically 

designated facts. Any doubt as to any facts or inferences to be 

drawn therefrom must be resolved in favor of the non-moving 

party. 

Daviess-Martin Cty. Joint Parks and Recreation Dep’t v. Estate of Abel by Abel, 77 

N.E.3d 1280, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citations omitted).

[12] The trial court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment because it 

held that Johnson had not exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing 

a lawsuit under 42 United States Code § 1983, as required by the Prison 

Litigation Reform Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); see also Higgason v. Stogsdill, 818 

N.E.2d 486, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied. Administrative remedies 

are considered exhausted as required by the PLRA when the grievant complies 

with all the rules of the prison grievance system. Smith v. Butts, 66 N.E.3d 967, 

971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). 

[13] We hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in this case 

because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether or not 

Johnson completed the last step of the DOC grievance process by filing an 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 8 of 9

appeal of the Offender Grievance Response issued by the State on January 12, 

2015. The State designated an affidavit from the CIF Offender Grievance 

Administrator, dated February 23, 2017, which stated that Johnson did not file 

a formal appeal of the January 12, 2015 decision regarding the grievance. The 

State also designated its grievances history log for Johnson which also indicated 

Johnson did not file a formal appeal of the grievance. However, Johnson 

designated his affidavit, dated February 9, 2015, in which he swore that he did 

file an appeal of the grievance on January 13, 2015. Johnson also designated

his February 6, 2015 request to the State for a copy of his appeal of the 

grievance. In addition, Johnson designated two requests made in January 2017 

for copies of the appeal of the grievance. Thus, there exists a genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether Johnson filed an appeal of the January 12, 2015 

grievance response,

2 making summary judgment inappropriate. Estate of Abel, 

77 N.E.3d at 1285.

 

2

 Much of the State’s appeal brief is devoted to arguing in the alternative that, even if Johnson did file an 

appeal of the grievance, that appeal was inadequate because he did not note at the bottom of the Offender 

Grievance Response Report that he disagreed with the decision, nor did he sign and date that form. State’s 

Br. at 12, 18-21. Given our holding, above, we need not address this contention. However, we note that 

nowhere in DOC policy number 00-02-301 does it require that an offender complete the bottom of the 

Offender Grievance Response Report in order to perfect his appeal. Appellee’s App. at 47-76. Furthermore, 

it is not possible to tell whether Johnson’s appeal, if filed, was sufficient because the State failed to keep a 

copy of the appeal as required by its own rules. Id. at 57 (Sec. XI (E), (H), and (K)). And the State did not 

give Johnson any response at all to his appeal, if filed, as also required by its own rules. Id. at 51, 69.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1711-PL-2840 | August 20, 2018 Page 9 of 9

Conclusion

[14] Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Johnson 

exhausted his administrative remedies, we reverse and remand for further 

proceedings.

[15] Reversed and remanded.

Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.