Opinion ID: 612486
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment Dismissal of Counts 1 and 4

Text: The district court allowed Maddox's complaint to go forward on Counts 1 and 4, but then granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on both counts because Maddox failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies. Maddox concedes that he failed to grieve his complaint for access to religious materials (Count 1), Appellant's Reply Br. p. 2 n. 1 (stating that his grievance did not address alleged denial of access to religious literature, and therefore, his claims as to this issue were properly dismissed on summary judgment), so we find that the district court properly dismissed that count. The district court, however, also dismissed Maddox's claim for group worship (Count 4) because he failed to list the names of the defendants, or if not known at the time, their description, in the grievance pursuant to 20 Illinois Administrative Code § 504.810. We review de novo the question whether the prisoner has met the exhaustion requirement. See Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 584 (7th Cir.2005). Exhaustion is an affirmative defense with the burden of proof on the defendants. See Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 212, 127 S.Ct. 910, 166 L.Ed.2d 798 (2007). The PLRA provides that [n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 ... until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Section 1997e(a) requires proper exhaustion; that is, the inmate must file a timely grievance utilizing the procedures and rules of the state's prison grievance process. See Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90, 93, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006); see also Conyers, 416 F.3d at 584. The applicable procedural rules that a prisoner must properly exhaust are defined not by the PLRA, but by the prison grievance process itself. Jones, 549 U.S. at 218, 127 S.Ct. 910. We have taken a strict compliance approach to exhaustion. Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 808 (7th Cir.2006). Thus, [a] prisoner must properly use the prison's grievance process. If he or she fails to do so, the prison administrative authority can refuse to hear the case, and the prisoner's claim can be indefinitely unexhausted. Id. Grievances are intended to [allow prisons] to address complaints about the program it administers before being subjected to suit, [reduce] litigation to the extent complaints are satisfactorily resolved, and [improve] litigation that does occur by leading to the preparation of a useful record. Jones, 549 U.S. at 219, 127 S.Ct. 910. The Illinois Administrative Code requires that the grievance contain factual details regarding each aspect of the offender's complaint, including what happened, when, where, and the name of each person who is the subject of or who is otherwise involved in the complaint. 20 Ill. Admin. Code § 504.810(b). If names of individuals are unknown to the offender, he can still file the grievance, but must include as much descriptive information about the individual as possible. Id. This version of the Code provision became effective in 2003 and was in effect when Maddox filed his grievance. However, Maddox filed his grievance on a prison form dated 2001 and the form only asked for a Brief Summary of Grievance; there was no indication on the form that names had to be provided. That's because under the prior version of § 504.810, inmates were not required to draft their grievances with any specific degree of factual particularity and were not required to identify, by name or otherwise, the individuals responsible for the events that gave rise to their respective grievances. See 27 Ill. Reg. § 6214 (amending § 504.810). Prior to 2003, a grievance sufficed simply by object[ing] intelligently to some asserted shortcoming. Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d 714, 718 (7th Cir.2005); see also Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir.2002) (Illinois has not established any rule or regulation prescribing the contents of a grievance or the necessary degree of factual particularity.). The defendants argue that Maddox failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not name the defendants or describe them in his grievance; the defendants do not otherwise contend that Maddox failed to follow the prison three-step grievance process. See 20 Ill. Admin. Code §§ 504.800 et seq. (detailing grievance procedure); see also Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282, 284 (7th Cir.2005) (explaining process). This argument fails because before this suit, Maddox's compliance with the grievance process was never in question. Maddox's grievance was rejected on the merits at every stage of review without any indication from prison officials that it was procedurally deficient. [6] [A] procedural shortcoming like failing to follow the prison's time deadlines amounts to a failure to exhaust only if prison administrators explicitly relied on that shortcoming. Conyers, 416 F.3d at 585. Where prison officials address an inmate's grievance on the merits without rejecting it on procedural grounds, the grievance has served its function of alerting the state and inviting corrective action, and defendants cannot rely on the failure to exhaust defense. See id.; see also Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521, 524 (7th Cir.2004) ([W]hen a state treats a filing as timely and resolves it on the merits, the federal judiciary will not second-guess that action, for the grievance has served its function of alerting the state and inviting corrective action.); Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 398 (7th Cir.2004) (stating that by deciding prisoner's grievance without invoking a forfeiture doctrine, the Administrative Review Board established that the prisoner exhausted his state remedies). Maddox's grievance served its function by providing prison officials a fair opportunity to address his complaint. He complained about an administrative decision  the cancellation of AHI services  and it belies reason to suggest that prison administrators at Lawrence were unaware of who was responsible for that decision. In fact, defendant Love was asked to respond to Maddox's grievance and defendant Garnett, as Chief Administrative Officer, was directly involved in denying it. That Maddox didn't specifically name the defendants in the grievance was a mere technical defect that had no effect on the process and didn't limit the usefulness of the exhaustion requirement. See Jones, 549 U.S. at 219, 127 S.Ct. 910 (providing early notice to those who might later be sued has not been thought to be one of the leading purposes of the exhaustion requirement) (citing Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 522 (5th Cir.2004) (We are mindful that the primary purpose of a grievance is to alert prison officials to a problem, not to provide personal notice to a particular official that he may be sued; the grievance is not a summons and complaint that initiates adversarial litigation.)). This conclusion is particularly appropriate in this case where the form provided by the prison didn't request inmates to provide the name of the person subject to the complaint. See, e.g., Curtis v. Timberlake, 436 F.3d 709, 712 (7th Cir.2005) (reversing summary judgment in favor of defendant on exhaustion grounds where prisoner presented evidence that he followed the prison's accepted practice with regard to submitting grievances even though he didn't follow the letter of the written grievance procedure). The grievance form provided to Maddox asked for a brief summary of the grievance; Maddox provided a brief summary. He was never informed that his summary was procedurally deficient, and prison officials (including defendant Garnett) acted on his grievance by addressing it on the merits after contacting defendant Love to respond. Based on these facts, we find that Maddox properly exhausted his administrative remedies. We therefore reverse the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Count 4 and remand for further consideration. The defendants addressed the merits of Count 4 in their memorandum in support of summary judgment and raised the defense of qualified immunity, but the district court didn't address those issues, nor has either party addressed them on appeal. We therefore remand to the district court to consider the plaintiffs' claims on the merits in the first instance. See, e.g., Johnson v. Hix Wrecker Serv., Inc., 651 F.3d 658, 664 (7th Cir.2011) (declining to address issue raised on summary judgment that the district court hadn't first considered); see also Hernandez v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 634 F.3d 906, 916-17 (7th Cir.2011) (remanding to the district court the issue of whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity).