## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 10

- 2745 J OS EP H R. H URST, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. T RAV IS H ANT KE, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 09 C50288

—Fr ederic k J . Kap ala, Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED J AN UA RY 20, 2011

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 10, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, E VANS, an d H A MI L T ON, Circ uit Ju dg es . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e p lain tiff, an in m at e in a n I l l i no i s s t a t e p r i s o n, b r o ughts ui tu nd e r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 983 cl ai m i ng tha t the pri so n ’s m edi calst affhad bee n d eliberat ely ind ifferent to his ne ed for m ed ical care f ora str oke , and by t h at del iber ate i nd i ffer ence had i nfl i cted cr uel and unus u al p unis hm ent o n hi m , i n vi ol ati on of hi s f edera l const i tuti onal ri ghts. Th e d istri ct cour t g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants on th e g ro u n d th at th e p lain tif fh a d fa iled to ex h au st h is2 N o. 10

- 2745 in te rn al p ris on rem ed ies , as re q u ire d by th e P ris on L itigation R eform A ct. See 42 U

. S. C

. § 1997e(a). H e h ad f i l e d a grie va n c e, bu t n otu n til eig h t a n d a h alf m onths afterhi s a l l ege d str oke , a n d the gr i evance was denie d because , under I l l i noi s l aw , to be ti m el y a g r i ev ance mustb e fi l ed wi th i n 6 0 day s o fthe e ve nt g i v i n gr i s e t o i t
. 2 0 I l l

. Adm i n. C o d e § 5 0 4

. 8 1 0 ( a )

. He appeal ed the denia l, cl ai m in g that he ’ d been l eft “ al m ost to ta lly in c ap ac ita te d ” b y h i s s tr ok e “ u n til j u st rec en tly .” A lth ou gh “g oo d c au se ” w ill ex c u se an u n tim ely filing, id ., th e pr i so n’ s admi ni st r at i ve r ev i ew b o ar d r ej ec te d the ex cus e o n the g r o und tha t “n o j us ti fi cation[ ha d b ee n] pr o vi ded f o r a ddi ti o na l c o ns i der at i o n. ” N o fur th ere xpl an at i o n was g i ve n. The distric t co ur t r ul ed th atthe pla i nti ffhad f ai l ed to exhaust hi s ad m i ni str ati ve re m edi es becaus e h e had pre sente d no ev i dence to supp or t hi s cl ai m o fi n c ap acita ti on e i therto the pri son au th o r i ti es , o r t o the di st r i ctc o ur t i n respo ns e to the defe nd ants’ m oti on f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. T h e t w o ru lin gs h av e t o b e s ep ar a t e d . T h e Illino is A dm i ni str ative Code does notr equi re a pri sone r to att ach ev i dence to a cl ai m o fgo od cause , any m or e than th e Fed e r a l R ules of CivilProced ure requ ire a p lai nt iff to at ta ch ev i den ce to hi s co m pl aint
. N o r did the pri son author i ti es te l l the pla i nti ffthathe ha d to att ach evide nc e to hi s cl ai m o fg o o d c au se . The y j us t sa i d “ no j us t i fi c a t i o n, ” l e a vi ng h i m t o g ue s s wh a to ne h a s t o do to j us ti fy g o o d c au se f o r a n un ti m el y fil i ng, b ey o nd e xpl a i ning wha t the g o o d c a us e c o ns i s t s o f

. I t i s t r ue that anunt i m el y fi l i ngc anb e co ns i der ed o nl y i fthe g r i ev an tN o. 10

- 2745 3 “c an dem onstratethata gr iev ance was notti m el y fi l ed f o r g o o d c a u s e , ” 2 0 I l l

. A d mi n . C o d e § 5 0 4

. 8 1 0 ( a ) ( e mp h as is a d d ed ), bu t t h at is j u st to sa y, as far a s w e c an te ll, that i f the pri son i nsi sts on evi den c e t o substant i ate the cl ai m , the pri sone r m ust supp l y evi dence. The p ri son neverga ve the pl ai nti ffan o pp or tuni ty to do so

. A p p ar en tly Il lin ois p ris on au th or itie s d o n otrou tin ely i n s i s to n e v i d e n c e w h e n th e y i n s t r u c ta n i n ma t e t o d e mon st ra te goo d ca u se for h a v in g filed an u n tim ely gr i evance , f ori n another case we have no te d t h at an Illino is p ris on ’s a d m in ist ra tiv e re vie w b o a r d w ou ld have f ound goo d c ause f oran unti m el y g ri evance had the i n m ate pro vi ded , atthe boar d’s re quest, m er el y a n ex p l a n at i on f or th e d ela y. Cannon v. Was hi ngt on , 41 8 F

. 3d 714, 71 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ; se e a l so D ol ev. Chand ler, 43 8 F.3d 804 , 807 (7th C ir. 2006). T h e Illino is c od e re q u i r es th at th e g rie va n c e c on ta in “f ac tu alde ta i l s r eg ar di ng ea ch as pec t o f ” i t, 2 0 I l l

. Adm i n. Code § 50 4. 810(b) , bu t d oes n’tr equi re thato fa cl ai m o f go od ca u se for a n u n t im ely filing ; an d ev en if it d id , a re quir em ent o fdetai l ed ple ading( “f act ple ading ”) is not the s am e thi ng as a re quir em ent o fat tachi ng ev i de n c e t o a pl ea di ng

— ane xt r emel y unu su alr equi r ement
. I m ag i ne dism i ssi ng a com pla i nt o n the gr ound that a l though i t s tated a c laim , the pla i nti ffhad f ai l ed to subm i t with th e com p l ainte vi den ce e st ab l i sh i ngthe a cc ur ac y o fthe f ac tu ala l l eg at i o ns i n the c o m pl aint
. Ye t th atwas the pr i s o n’ s g r o un d f o r r ej e c t i ng o ur pl a i nt i ff’ s c l a i m o f goo d cause t o fi l e a n unti m el y g ri evance . A pri sone r i s r equi re d to exhaust o nl y “ avai l abl e” ad m in ist ra tiv e re m ed ies , 42 U .S.C . § 19 97 e ( a); Wo o dfo rd4 N o. 10

- 2745

v. Ngo, 5 4 8 U .S. 81 , 102 (20 06 ), an d a re m ed y is n otav ailab le i fe ss en ti ale l ement s o fthe pr o ce dur e f o r o bt aini ng it a re co n c ea led

. D ol ev. Chand ler, s u pra , 43 8 F

. 3d at 810; B ryant v. Rich , 530 F.3d 136 8, 1373 n. 6 ( 1 1 t h C ir. 2008 ). A pp ar en tly the pla i nti ff’ s pri son has cr eat ed a s ecr et su ppl ementt o th e st at e’ s admi ni st r at i ve c o de, r equi r i ng that cl ai m s o fgo od cause f oran unti m ely fil i ng be accom panie d by e vi dence. I n i ts bri efi n thi s co urt the s tat e r efuses eve n to acknowle dge thatphysi calincapaci tat i on i s g oo d cause f or an u n tim ely filing . Th e im p lica tio n is th at ev en if th e pl aint i ffha d b ee n i n a c o m a f o r 6 0 days after the al l eg edl y wi l l fulf ai l ur e to t r eat h i s st r o k e pr o m ptl y, he woul d ha ve f o r f ei te d hi s admi nist r at i ve r emedi es , thus bl ock i ng hi s acces s to the federa l cour ts. I t i s ha rd to b elie ve th at t h is is a co rre c t in te rp re ta tio n of th e Illino is code’s fa i l ure to sta te that physi cali ncapaci ty can be g o o d c a u s e f o r a n u n t i me l y fi l i n g . ( C o mpa r e the gr i evance pro ced u re f orfedera l pri sone rs , wh i ch pro

vi des that“a n extended peri od ofti m e duri ng wh i ch the inm ate was physi cal l y incapabl e o fpre pari ng a Re que sto r Appea l ” i s a “v al i d r ea so n f o r de l ay ” i n fi l i ng a g rie va n c e. 28 C .F.R . § 54 2.1 4(b ); M cC o y v . Gilb ert, 27 0 F

. 3d 503 , 5 10

- 11 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)

. ) I n a ny e ve nt, a n a dm i ni str ati ve re m edy that w oul d b e f or fei ted f or f ailur e to c om p ly w ith a d ea d lin e t h at in t h e c irc u m st an c es co u ld not possibl y b e co m pli ed w i th would n ot be “ava i l abl e” w i t h i n t h e m ea n in g of 1 8 U .S.C . § 19 97 e(a ), as h eld in Day s v . Jo h n s on, 3 22 F. 3d 863, 86 7- 68 ( 5th Ci r. 20 03) ( per cur i am)

. ( An unr el at ed r ul i ngi n D ays , i nvol vi ng bur den of pr o vinge xha us ti on, was r ej ec te d i n Jones v. Bo ck, 54 9N o. 10

- 2745 5 U .S. 19 9 , 21 6 (2 00 7). Se e, e.g ., D illo n v . Ro gers , 59 6 F

. 3d 26 0, 26 7 (5 th C ir. 20 10 ).) Bu t when the pl ai nti ffsued, and the defe nd ants m ove d f or s um m ar y j udg m en t, i t be ho o ve d hi m t o pr es en t evi dence t o supp or t hi s co ntenti on that he had i nd eed exhausted hi s a vai l abl e a d m i ni str ati ve re m edi es by filin g a grie va n c e a s s o on as it w as rea so n ab ly p os sib le for h im t o d o s o. O br ie cht v. R aem is ch , 51 7 F

. 3d 489, 49 2- 93 (7th C ir. 2008). A lthou gh w arn e d b y t he district cou rt th athe ha d t o m eet the mot i o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t wi the vi den ce , the p lai nt i ffpr es en te d no ne . And s o he l ost
. But w e thi n k i t worth em phasi zi ng tha t he did not l ose bec ause I l l i noi s l aw r equi re s a g ri evantto at tach evi dence to a cl ai m o fgo od cau se fo r an unti m el y g ri evance

— i t doe s no t

— or be c au se p h ys ica l inc ap ac ita tio n is no t g o o d c au se wi th i n the mean i ngo f th e t erm i n the I l l i no i s c o de

— i ti s g o o d c a u s e . I tb e t t e r b e , b e c a u s e we ag r ee wi th D a ys v. Johns on an d th e d ec isio n s fo llow in g it ( none i s t o the c ontr ar y)

— D il lo n v . Ro gers , sup ra , 59 6 F. 3d at 267; Jo hn son v. Fo rd, 261 Fed

. A p p ’x 752 (5th Cir. 20 08 ); G arre ttv. Pa rt in , 248 Fed

. A p p ’x 585 (5th Cir

. 2007); Ta te v. Ho w es , 20 10 W L 22 31 81 2, at * 2 ( W

. D. M i ch. J une 2, 20 10 ); B raswel l v. Co rrec tio n s C o rp. of Am er ica , 2 0 0 9 WL 24 47 61 4, at *8 (M .D

. T en n . A u g. 10 , 2 0 0 9); Wi l l i am s v. H urley, 20 07 W L 12027 23 ( S. D. Ohio A pr. 23 , 20 07)

— that a r emedy is no t “a va i l ab l e” wi th i n the mean i ngo fthe P ris on L itig at ion R efo rm A c t t o a p er so n p h ys ica lly unabl e t o pu rs ue i t. A FFI RMED
.

2- 10- 11