# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 A rg ued A pri l 22 , 20 09 Deci ded J uly7, 20 09 B efo re D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E S. SY K E S, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 3349 RON AL D T. S CH AE F ER, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant,
v. M A R K A . B E Z Y , W ar d en , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees
. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fI nd i ana, Te r r e H au te Di vi si o n. N o. 05 CV 24 0 L ar ry J. M c K in n ey , J udg e .
OR D ER Ro na l d S ch ae f er, a f o r m eri nm at e atthe Te r r e H au te F ede r alCo r r ec ti o na l Co m pl ex , su ed the p rison w ard en and doc tor un d er B ivens v. Six U nkno w n Nam ed Agents , 40 3 U.S
. 38 8 ( 1971 ) , f ordenyi ng hi m m edi calcar e i n vi ol ati on o fthe Eighth A m endm ent. He now appeal s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o gr ant the defendants sum m ar y j ud gm ent b ase d on hi s f ai l ure to exhaust a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es. S chaeferco ntends thathi s f ai l ure shoul d be 

### NO NPRE CE DE NT IAL D ISP OSIT ION Tobec ite d only

in ac c orda

nc ewith Fe d. R. App. P. 32.1N o. 08
- 3349 

### Pag e 2

excused beca use he f ol l owed the advi ce o fhi s ca se counsel orwh o, he a sse rt s, to l d him to use o nl y info rm algr i evance s a nd r efused to gi ve hi m the properf or m to fi l e a f or m al g r i ev an ce . T he c as e co uns el o r de ni ed i n a n a ffi dav i t th athe e ve r ha d s ucha conve rs ati on— orco uld have had— because atthatti m e he had al re ady be en tr ansfer re d to a di ff e r e ntp a r to fthe p r i s o n. We v a c a t e a nd r e man d. I . B a c kg r o und Schae f erente re d the pri son i n M ay 2005 atag e 7 2 t o com ple te hi s 3 7- m onth se nt en ce , whi chhe ha d s er ve d i n thr ee s eg m en ts a fte r he was r el ea se d t wi ce pe ndi ng re se n te n c in g a fte r su c c es sfu l ap p ea ls. See U nited Sta tes v. Sch a efer, 384 F.3d 326 , 338 (7th C ir. 2004 ); U nited Sta tes v. Sch a efer, 29 1 F
. 3d 932, 93 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. Bef or e e nter i ng the pri son h e w as be in g t re at ed for os te oa rt h rit is of h is rig h t h ip an d w ea kn es s in h is leg s, an d h is d oc to r w ar n ed th at w ith ou t c on tin u ed p h ys ica l th er ap y h e w ou ld likely n ee d a to ta l hip r epl ac ement . S ch ae f erwas a ss i g ne d t o the Te r r e H au te F ede r alPr i so n Ca m p, the m i ni m um - se cur i tyf ac i l i tyl o ca te d wi th i n the F ede r alCo r r ec ti o na l Co m pl ex . Be g i nn i ngo n o r ab o utJ un e 3 , 2 0 0 5 , du r i ngthe fi r s tthr e e mo nths a tthe p r i s o n c a mp, Sc h ae fer req u es te d m ed ica l ca re fou r tim es u sin g a form ca lled “In m at e R eq u es t t o St aff,” an i nfo rm alpro cedure to add re ss i nm ate gr i evance s. In al l o fthe re quests, S chaeferas ked th e pr i so n do ct o r, Dr
. W eb st er, a nd the pr i so n war den, M ar kBe zy, f o r o r th o pedi c an d ot h er m ed ica l ca re . W h en th os e re q u es ts yield ed n o re su lts , Sch ae fer filed a fed er al la w su it i n Se ptem ber20 05 aga i nst Bezyand the Feder alBureau o fPri sons, as ki ng f or“e m er gency j ud i ci ali nter venti on” to ei thertr ansferhi m to a f aci l i ty that provi des o rthopedic car e o r pla ce hi m o n hom e co nfinem ent. But the l aw sui t di d not pro vi de Schae f erthe em er gency reli ef he w as seekin g beca us e noth ing ha p p en ed before he left the prison cam p i n Jan ua ry 20 06
. A t t h at p oin t, Sc h ae fer , th en livin g in a h alfw ay h ou se in In d ian ap olis , am en d ed h is co m pl aintt o a skf o r da m ag es , r athe r tha n i nj unc ti ve r el i ef
. Afte r hi s r el ea se fr o m the ha l fwa y h o us e , h e s e c ur e d the s e r v i c e s o fa n a t t o r ne y a nd a men de d the c o mpl a i ntt o a dd Dr
. W eb st era s a defen dan t. At sc r ee ni ng, the di st r i ctc o ur t di smi ss ed th e cl ai m a g ains t th e B u re au of P ris on s. See 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 1 9 1 5 A. Bef o r e an swe r i ng, the de f en dan ts move d t o di smi ss the c o m pl ainto r, i n the alt er n at ive , for su m m ar y jud gm en t, co n te n d in g t h at Sc h ae fer h ad failed to ex h au st h is ad m inistrative rem ed ies. Schaefer ad m itted thathe d id n ot com p lete the p rison’s A dm i ni str ati ve Rem edy Pr oce du re , wh i ch w oul d have r equi re d him to fi l e a f or m al gr i evance afterhi s unsucces sful i nfo rm alr equests , and then co m ple te up to two l eve l s o f ap p ea ls. See 28 C. F. R. § 542. 13-
. 15. But S chaeferar gued that hi s f ai l ure to f or m al l y e xhaust his rem ed ies shou ld be ex cu sed becau se he had exh au sted the rem ed ies that w ere “ava i l abl e” to hi m . He conte nd ed i n an affi davi t that he conta cted hi s a ssi gned cas eN o. 08
- 3349 

### Pag e 3

counsel or, Kraem er, abo ut hi s m edi calneeds on J une 3, 20 05, r i ght a fterhe ha d been proce sse d i nto the pr i son cam p, and K ra em erto l d him to use an i nfo rm alr equest ra ther than the A dm i ni str ati ve Rem edy Pr oce du re bec ause the for m alsy ste m would tak e t oo l o ng . S ch ae f ers ai d tha t Kra emerr efus ed to g i ve hi m the ne ce ss ar y f o r m t o b eg i n the f o r ma l r e v i e w p r o c e s s , a n d th u s h e f o l l o we d th e o n l y r e me d y th a tw a s a v a i l a b l e t o h i m. The defe nd ants re pli ed to S chaeff er ’ s a sse rt i ons w i th an affi davi t fro m Kraem er denyi ng tha t he had any co ntact at that ti m e with Schae f er . Krae m erst ate d that he was not wor k i nga t th e pr i so n c amp i n J une 2 00 5; i n Mar ch2 00 5 he ha d b ee n t r an sfer r ed to the m ax im u m -se c u rity p en ite n tia ry atth e T er re H au te Fe d er al C or re c tio n al C om p lex
. K ra em er sa id th at h e h ad be en Sc h ae fer ’s c ou n se lor in th e p as t, bu t a fte r h is t ra n sfe r in M ar ch he no l onge r had contactwith inm ate s a t the pri son cam p, and thus co uld nothave been i n a pos i ti on t o deny Sc haeferany f or m s. The dis tr i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants. The c ourtag re ed w i th the defendants thatS chaeferf ai l ed to cr eat e a ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act con cern ing the availabil ity ofad m inistrative rem ed ies becau se K raem er w as no t Sch aefer’s ca se c o uns el o r a nd he was no t phy si ca l l y pr es en t atthe pr i so n c amp i n J une 2 00 5. T he co ur t f o und tha t afte r Kr ae m erwas t r an sfer r ed to the maxi m um - se cur i typr i so n, he ha d no c on ta c t w ith p ris on -c am p inm at es . T h u s, th e c ou rtco n c lu d ed , “n o re as on ab le jur or co u ld b e l i e v e tha tKr a e mert o l d S c ha e f e r n o tt o u s e the BO P’ s ma nd a t o r y a dmi ni s t r a t i v e r e med y pr o ce dur e, o r tha t Kra emert o l d S ch ae f ertha t a ‘ co p o ut ’ was a n a dequa te s ubs ti tu te f o r the ad m in ist ra tiv e re m ed y p ro c ed u re .” II . A n alysis O n ap p eal Schae fer argues th at th e d istri ct cou rt erred in gran ting su m m ary j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants because , he c onte nd s, ther e i s a ge nuine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act ab ou t e x h au st ion

— n am ely , w h et h er th e fo rm al p ris on rem ed ies w er e a va ilab le t o h im . This i ssue i s di sputed, he s ays , by two affi davi ts: he a sse rt s hi m sel fthatKraem err efused to gi ve hi m a BP-9 f or m and to l d him notto use the for m alpro cedure; Kraem erhas subm i tte d ana ffi dav i t o fhi s o wn, a ss er tingtha t he di d no t an d c o ul d no t ha ve do ne tha t be ca us e he had no co ntact w i th pri son- cam p i nm ate s a t the ti m e a nd afterS chaefercl ai m s he fi rs t re quested the f or m s. Altho ug h a pr i so ne r mustpr o per l y e xha us t th e admi ni st r at i ve r emedi es wi th i n the p ris on be for e s u in g ov er p ris on co n d itio n s, see 42 U .S.C . § 19 97 e(a ); W oodf or d v
. N go , 54 8 U
. S. 81, 83-84 (2006); P o z o v. M cC a ug htry , 28 6 F
. 3d 1022 , 10 24- 25 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) , he ne ed exhaust o nl y the r em edi es “ava i l abl e” to hi m . A pri son em plo yee wh o preve nts a cces s t o a re m edy ca n re nd erthatr em edy unavai l abl e; i n such ci rcum sta nces, a f ai l ure to exhaustN o. 08
- 3349 

### Pag e 4

w ou ld n ot ba r filin g s u it. See P a vey v. C o nley, 544 F.3d 73 9, 74 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); D al ev. Lapp in , 37 6 F
. 3d 652, 65 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( pri son offi ci al s a l l ege dly r efused to gi ve pri sone r n ec es sa ry form s); Brown v. Cr oak, 31 2 F
. 3d 109, 11 3 ( 3d Cir
. 20 02) ( unti m el y g ri evance w oul d be e xcused i fpri son offi ci alto l d pri sone r to w ai t be f or e fi l i ng i t)
. But i fthe pri sone r h im se lf w er e a t fa u lt for n ot ex h au st in g, th en th e c as e w ou ld be ov er . See P a vey , 54 4 F
. 3d at 74 2. The pri son em plo yee s be arthe burden ofes tabl i shi ng tha t a dm i ni str ati ve re m edi es w er e a va ilab le t o t h e p ris on er . Se eKab a v. St epp , 458 F.3d 678 , 686 (7th C ir. 2006). T h is c ou rtrev iew s a gra n t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o a n d vie w s t h e re c or d in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le t o Sc h ae fer , th e n on m ov in g p ar ty . H a yes v . Sny der, 54 6 F
. 3d 516, 52 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te if th e e vid en c e s h ow s t h at “t h er e is no g enui ne i ssue ofany m ate ri alf act and that the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P . 56(c ); see Green o v. D a ley, 414 F.3d 64 5, 65 2 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). Because the pri son em plo yee s be arthe burden on exhausti on, theym ust do m or e than po i ntt o a l ac ko fe vi den ce i n the r ec o r d; r athe r the y must“ es tabl i sha ffi r m at i ve l y ” th atthe evi dence i s s o one- si ded thatno re aso nabl e f actfi nd erco uld fi nd thatS chaeferwas p re ve n te d from ex h au st in g h is a d m in ist ra tiv e re m ed ies . R eserve Su pp ly C o rp. v. O w ensCorn i ng Fi b e rgl as Corp. , 971 F.2d 37, 42 (7 th C ir. 19 92 ); s e eBr anha m v. Sn ow , 39 2 F
. 3d 896, 90 6- 07 (7th C ir. 2004). Sum m ar y j ud gm ent m ay not be use d to re sol ve a s w ear i ng co ntestbetw een litig an ts . See C helio s v. Heav ener, 520 F.3d 678 , 688 (7th C ir. 2008); P a yn e v. P a uley, 33 7 F
. 3d 767, 77 0- 71 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03)
. The pr i son em plo yee s di d not i ntro du ce o therev i dence of K ra em er ’s t ra n sfe r— su c h as K ra em er ’s t im e c ar d or offic ial w or k s c h ed u le for th e d at es in que st i o n— an d s o S ch ae f er ’ s ve r si o n o fe ve nt s i s es se nt i al l y pi tt ed ag ains t Kra emer ’ s. And b ec au se Sc h ae fer h ad p er so n al k n ow led ge of th e a lleg ed co n ve rs at ion , his affid av it is su fficie n t t o c re at e a fac tu al d isp u te th at K ra em er w as th er e. Se eHol m e s v. Vi l l ageof H offm an E st ate, 51 1 F
. 3d 673, 68 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. Base d on thi s co nfl i cti ng r eco rd, o n r emand th e co ur t wi l l ne ed to ho l d a n e vi den ti ar y he ar i nga s co nt empl at ed i n P a vey , 54 4 F
. 3d at742 , t o r es o l ve the que st i o n o fe xha us ti o n. A ccor dingl y, we VA CATE a nd RE MAND
.