Virgil E. Griffin v. Douglas Wardlow

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 7, 2024*
Decided November 15, 2024
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1145
VIRGIL E. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS WARDLOW, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division.
No. 3:22-CV-152-DRL-JPK
Damon R. Leichty,
Judge.
O R D E R
Virgil Griffin, an Indiana prisoner, appeals the summary judgment entered
against him for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this suit, as
required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). Because
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-1145 Page 2
administrative remedies were available to Griffin, and he did not strictly comply with
the procedural requirements, we affirm.
In his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Griffin alleged that staff members at
Indiana State Prison subjected him to conditions of confinement that violated the Eighth
Amendment, and that administrators at the prison and within the Indiana Department
of Correction were aware of, but failed to correct, the conditions. Relevant for this
appeal, the Department’s grievance procedures consisted of three steps, requiring a
prisoner to (1) file a grievance after attempting to resolve the issue informally; (2) file an
appeal to the warden or the warden’s designee; and (3) file an appeal to the
Department’s grievance manager. See IDOC Manual of Policies and Procedures
No. 00-02-301, at 3. This grievance process was required for allegations relating to
conditions within the prison but could not be used for every kind of problem, such as
complaints about the grievance system or grievance responses. See id. at 3–5.
From December 2021 through January 2022, Griffin filed several grievances
relating to the water and air temperatures. He first submitted a grievance stating that
the water in his housing unit was too cold for him to take a shower. In response, an
administrator stated that corrections officers were unable to change the water
temperature in the prison. Griffin did not appeal the response. Soon after, he submitted
a new grievance, this time stating that the air temperature in his cell was “freezing
cold” and that the prison did not supply adequate clothing to stay warm. An
administrator returned the grievance to Griffin and asked him to resubmit it with more
details, such as what had occurred on the date of the incident, the staff that he has
discussed the issue with, and the responses he received. Griffin did not resubmit his
grievance; instead, he submitted another grievance stating that the administrator had
denied him access to the grievance process by returning the previous grievance
unresolved. This grievance was returned to Griffin on the basis that the regulations do
not permit using a grievance to complain about the contents of a response. See id. at 4
(listing “contents of a grievance or appeal responses” as matters inappropriate for the
grievance process).
Griffin then filed this § 1983 suit alleging that defendants including correctional
staff, grievance officers, prison administrators, and Department officials failed to ensure
that he was provided with adequate clothing, bedding, heating, and warm water, in
violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court screened the complaint,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed the grievance officers as defendants, but it allowed
Griffin to proceed against the defendants who allegedly provided prisoners inadequate

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-1145 Page 3
clothing and bedding. The defendants later moved for summary judgment on the
ground that Griffin had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court
agreed with the defendants, rejecting Griffin’s argument that the grievance process was
unavailable to him.
On appeal, Griffin argues that the district court erred in dismissing the grievance
officers as defendants and in concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. We review these decisions de novo. See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 994
(7th Cir. 2020) (screening order); Williams v. Ortiz, 937 F.3d 936, 941 (7th Cir. 2019)
(exhaustion of administrative remedies).
The district court properly concluded that Griffin could not sue the grievance
officers on the theory that his grievances made them aware of the allegedly inhumane
conditions at the prison yet they did nothing to address his needs. To be liable under
§ 1983, a defendant must be personally responsible for the violation of a constitutional
right. See Taylor v. Ways, 999 F.3d 478, 493 (7th Cir. 2021). An official who merely
reviews and processes a grievance cannot be liable for the conduct or conditions
forming the basis of that grievance. See Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 563 (7th Cir. 2017).
As to the issue of exhaustion of remedies, the Prison Litigation Reform Act
provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions … until
such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This
provision requires “proper” exhaustion, Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93 (2006), as
defined by the prison’s grievance procedures. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 (2007). But
exhaustion is not required if a grievance process is not “available.” Gooch v. Young,
24 F.4th 624, 627 (7th Cir. 2022). This includes situations where “prison officials
responsible for providing grievance forms refuse to give a prisoner the forms necessary
to file an administrative grievance.” Id. (citation omitted). Because failure to exhaust is
an affirmative defense, the defendants must show that administrative remedies were
available to Griffin. Id.
Here, the defendants met their burden with their evidence that Griffin did not
complete all three steps of the process with respect to any grievance relevant to this
lawsuit. Strict compliance with the grievance process is required for proper exhaustion,
and so Griffin must complete each step prescribed by the prison’s regulations. See Jones,
549 U.S. at 218 (“[I]t is the prison’s requirements … that define the boundaries of proper
exhaustion.”); Williams v. Rajoli, 44 F.4th 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 2022). Griffin does not
dispute that he never appealed the denial of his grievances or that he failed to resubmit

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-1145 Page 4
any grievance with additional information when instructed by a grievance officer. Nor
does he argue that the prison’s grievance procedure was so vague that no ordinary
prisoner could make sense of its requirements. See Reid v. Balota, 962 F.3d 325, 329
(7th Cir. 2020). Indeed, the Department’s records show that Griffin knew the steps to
properly exhaust his grievances: he fully exhausted the process at least twice.
With respect to the grievances that Griffin says were ignored (returned without
any investigation) rather than processed, the record shows that this occurred only when
the grievance was not properly filed under the regulations: he failed to supply requested
information to allow investigation, or the content of the grievance was outside the scope
of the process. Proper filing is required before a grievance officer must respond to them.
See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). Griffin’s frustration with returned
grievances did not make the process unavailable; rather than “obscur[ing] the process,”
Reid, 962 F.3d at 330, the responses identified the problem and told Griffin how to
proceed. Therefore, the grievance process was available for him.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --