Opinion
No. 06 C 1070.
November 21, 2006
MEMORANDUM
As directed by this Court's brief November 7, 2006 memorandum order, appointed counsel for plaintiff Ronald Thomas ("Thomas") has filed a response that sets out grounds for rejection of defendants' charge of nonexhaustion of available administrative remedies — a charge that if sustained would call for dismissal under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). That submission appears facially correct, and unless defense counsel were to file a persuasive refutation supporting the nonexhaustion claim on or before December 4, 2006, this Court will strike the First Affirmative Defense set out in defendants' Answer to Thomas' Second Amended Complaint.
Indeed, it may well be prudent not to credit the non-exhaustion claim at this time in any event — see 75 U.S.L.W. 3241-43 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2006), reporting the differing views expressed by the Supreme Court Justices during the October 30 oral argument of Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058 in Williams v. Overton, No. 05-7142.