Bruce v. Vannatta

Full title: WILLIAM BRUCE, Plaintiff, v. JOHN VANNATTA, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

Date published: Jul 25, 2005

Cause No. 3:04-CV-402 CAN (N.D. Ind. Jul. 25, 2005)

Opinion

Cause No. 3:04-CV-402 CAN.

July 25, 2005

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. NUECHTERLEIN, Magistrate Judge

William Bruce, a pro se prisoner, filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when they failed to protect him from being attacked by other inmates. The defendants moved for summary judgment and Mr. Bruce has responded.

The standard for reviewing a summary judgment motion is the same regardless of whether a party is represented by counsel. See Outlaw v. Newkirk, 259 F.3d 833, 836-837 (7th Cir. 2001).

[T]he plain language of [FED. R. CIV. P.] 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be "no genuine issue as to any material fact," since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law" because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.

Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-323 (1986).

Citing 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), the defendant contends that Mr. Bruce did not exhaust his available administrative remedies. In her affidavit, Amy Clark states that the prison has a grievance procedure. The procedure provides for written grievances with written responses. She says that Mr. Bruce did not file a timely grievance claiming that the defendants failed to take action to protect him.

In his response, Mr. Bruce states that he filed letters, but he does not say that he completed all of the steps necessary to exhaust the grievance procedure. Though he attaches two grievances to his complaint, both of them are "Step 1" forms. Having not exhausted all of the steps in the grievance procedure, Mr. Bruce did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore this case must be dismissed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment (docket # 29) is GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.