Burt v. Berner

13 Citing cases

  1. Todd v. Shaw

    Case No. 3:17-cv-359-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2018)

    Additionally, where there is a change in treatment provider and the complaint is specific to that provider's actions, rather than regarding an ongoing policy or practice, a new grievance is required. Burt v. Berner, 2015 WL 1740044, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015); Barrow v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 2015 WL 5674892, at *4 (S.D. Ill. September 28, 2015) (where the complaints against a defendant are not related to a policy, but rather specific to the treatment of that particular defendant, a separate grievance must be filed). Here, Todd's grievances complain of an unresolved continuing violation that encompasses Blum's alleged inaction.

  2. Garcia v. Alfonso

    23-cv-3561-DWD (S.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2024)

    First, the grievance must complain of a continuing objectionable condition. See Turley, 729 F.3d at 650; see also Burt v. Berner, No. 13-CV-794-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 1740044, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) (explaining “that a previously submitted grievance will suffice to exhaust remedies for future events only if the prisoner remained in the same situation”). Second, this continuing objectionable condition must form the basis of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in litigation. See Henderson v. Jess, No. 21-1585, 2022 WL 1831133, at *3 (7th Cir. June 3, 2022)

  3. Saffold v. Fuller

    22-cv-1467-pp (E.D. Wis. Sep. 24, 2024)

    He instead was required to file a separate grievance about Dr. Ribault's medical decisions- decisions with which he disagreed based on the facts that Dr. Ribault encountered when he saw the plaintiff in July 2021. See Venson v. Gregson, Case No. 18-CV-2185, 2021 WL 2948817, at *9 (S.D. Ill. July 14, 2021) (finding Turley's “continuing violation doctrine” inapplicable where the alleged mistreatment “is of a different flavor and is factually distinct” from that alleged in earlier complaints); Burt v. Berner, Case No. 13-CV-794, 2015 WL 1740044, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) (finding “remoteness in time” can render earlier grievance insufficient to exhaust administrative remedies for future, similar mistreatment).

  4. Bilik v. Hardy

    12-cv-04532 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 7, 2023)

    Anderson v. Larry, No. 21-cv-944, 2022 WL 17357434, at *14 (N.D. Ill.Dec. 1, 2022) (explaining that the facts underlying an otherwise continuing violation change upon an inmate's transfer to a new prison because the alleged “instances of mistreatment occurred at different prisons”); Burt v. Berner, No. 13-CV-794-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 1740044, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) (holding that an inmate cannot rely upon a grievance filed at his former prison “to exhaust his claims for the denial of medical care that occurred at a wholly different location and involved completely different individuals operating under different circumstances”); see also Barrow v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-941-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 11539508, at *5 (S.D. Ill. July 16, 2015) (“Plaintiff's change in treatment providers necessarily changed the conditions of the medical care provided, necessitating a new grievance.”)

  5. Anderson v. Larry

    21-cv-944 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    First, the grievance must complain of a continuing objectionable condition. See Turley, 729 F.3d at 650; see also Burt v. Berner, No. 13-CV-794-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 1740044, at *3 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) (explaining “that a previously submitted grievance will suffice to exhaust remedies for future events only if the prisoner remained in the same situation”). Second, this continuing objectionable condition must form the basis of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in litigation. See Henderson v. Jess, No. 21-1585, 2022 WL 1831133, at *3 (7th Cir. June 3, 2022)

  6. Venson v. Gregson

    3:18-CV-2185-MAB (S.D. Ill. Jul. 14, 2021)   Cited 7 times

    See also Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503, 521 n.13 (5th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e do not here hold that a grievance filed in response to one particular incident automatically exhausts claims that arise from future incidents of the same general type. Thus, an inmate who claims to have been beaten by guards (or, for that matter, not protected by guards) once one month and again the next month can rightfully be expected to grieve both incidents . . . .”); Howard v. Wade, 534 F.3d 1227, 1244-45 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding plaintiff's earlier grievances regarding risks to his safety in one section of the prison were not sufficient to “put prison officials on notice” of intimidation that occurred in another part of the prison some months later); Burt v. Berner, No. 13-CV-794-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 1740044, at *4 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) (plaintiff could not rely on previously filed grievance “to exhaust his claims for the denial of medical care that occurred at a wholly different location and involved completely different individuals operating under different circumstances.”). The other two grievances Plaintiff cites to are the May 4th and May 10th grievances (Doc. 125, p. 14).

  7. Hebron v. Baldwin

    Case No. 17-cv-6254 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2020)   Cited 13 times

    Absent additional details in the grievance, these statements cannot put Wexford on notice of Plaintiff's allegations that Wexford engaged in a deliberate scheme to cut costs and thus deny Plaintiff medical care, much less provide them an opportunity to correct the problem. See, e.g., Burt v. Berner, No. 13-CV-794-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 1740044, at *6 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) ("Merely stating that 'the staff is deliberately and blatantly denying me my medication,' did not give sufficient notice to prison officials that [plaintiff] was contending correctional officers and medical staff at Menard were working together with Stateville staff members to achieve the express goal of denying him medical care."). As such, this Court finds that Plaintiff's September 16, 2016 grievance fails to exhaust his deliberate indifference claim, to the extent it includes Defendant Wexford.

  8. Todd v. Shaw

    No. 17-cv-0359-DRH (S.D. Ill. Sep. 27, 2018)

    Further, unlike Burt and Barrow, this is a complaint about the general policy or practice of failing to provide medically necessary meals, and not the specific treatment provided by Blum. See Burt v. Berner, 2015 WL 1740044, at *5 (S.D. Ill. April 14, 2015); Barrow v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 2015 WL 5674892 at *4 (S.D. Ill. September 28, 2015).As such, requiring Todd to file another grievance each time a new health care provider continued in the ongoing denial of his request for medically necessary meals is contrary to the Seventh Circuit's holding in Turley v. Rednour, that prisoners do not need to file multiple grievances where a continuing violation exists.

  9. Todd v. Shaw

    No. 17-cv-0359-DRH (S.D. Ill. Sep. 26, 2018)

    Further, unlike Burt and Barrow, this is a complaint about the general policy or practice of failing to provide medically necessary meals, and not the specific treament provided by Blum. See Burt v. Berner, 2015 WL 1740044, at *5 (S.D. Ill. April 14, 2015); Barrow v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 2015 WL 5674892 at *4 (S.D. Ill. September 28, 2015).As such, requiring Todd to file another grievance each time a new health care provider continued in the ongoing denial of his request for medically necessary meals is contrary to the Seventh Circuit's holding in Turley v. Rednour, that prisoners do not need to file multiple grievances where a continuing violation exists.

  10. Stevenson v. Cordova

    Civil Action No. 14-cv-00649-CBS (D. Colo. Oct. 4, 2016)   Cited 5 times

    Johnson v. Testman, 380 F.3d 691, 697 (2d Cir. 2004) ("a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought") (quoting Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2002), overruled in part on other grounds by Bell Atl. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 (2007). Cf. Soto v. Warden of Salinas Valley State Prison, No. 15-02024 BLF (PR), 2016 WL 3661384, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 1, 2016) (plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies where his grievances, even when construed liberally, did not discuss or mention any claim of conspiracy or make any allegation of a cover-up related to plaintiff's excessive force claim); Burt v. Berner, No. 13-CV-794-NJR-DGW, 2015 WL 1740044, at *6 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2015) (in holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his conspiracy claim, the court noted that the prisoner's grievance "needed to alert prison officials to the 'nature of the wrong'" and that the plaintiff's grievance did "nothing to induce the reader to consider that the denial of medical care was perhaps the result of a premeditated, multi-institution plan involving both correctional officers and medical staff"). To that same end, AR 850-04 requires that the inmate "clearly state the basis for the grievance.