Jesse R. Perez v. Mohammed Siddiqui

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 20, 2026*
Decided May 20, 2026
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1766
JESSE R. PEREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOHAMMED SIDDIQUI, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 20-cv-00728-SMY
Staci M. Yandle,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Jesse Perez, an Illinois prisoner, sued various prison officials and healthcare
providers over allegedly ineffective treatment of his ruptured appendix and infected
testicle. On appeal, Perez challenges the district court’s screening of certain claims and
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 6 --

No. 24-1766 Page 2
entry of summary judgment for failure to administratively exhaust other claims. We
affirm.
Perez, who is incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, submitted three
grievances relevant to this appeal. The first (No. 347-7-19) was submitted in July 2019.
He stated that in June 2019 he woke up with a sharp pain on the right side of his
abdomen. Nurse Practitioner Mary Jo Zimmer examined him and took x-rays.
Afterwards, Perez continued to experience stomach pain and also noticed a lump in his
right testicle. He told Nurse Tatika Locke that he needed to go to the hospital because of
pain, vomiting, loss of appetite, and the lump in his testicle. Locke took a urine sample
and did nothing else. Days later, Perez reported continuing symptoms and a bloated,
tender stomach. Zimmer sent him to the hospital where he was diagnosed with a
ruptured appendix and received an emergency appendectomy. After surgery, he was
informed that an infection had spread to his kidneys, lungs, stomach, and right testicle.
He was transferred to a different hospital where he received testicular surgery.
According to Perez, the infection would not have spread if Zimmer and Locke had sent
him to the hospital earlier.
In October 2019, Perez filed a second grievance (No. 336-10-19) because he had
not yet received a response to the first grievance. He reasserted the facts from the prior
grievance and contended that unidentified nurses failed to follow the post-op
procedures for his surgery in July 2019. In the grievance, he also asked to be sent back to
the hospital for further testicular surgery to ease his discomfort. This grievance was
denied as untimely and duplicative of the first grievance, which was still pending
review.
In December 2019, Perez filed a third grievance (No. 169-12-19) reiterating his
prior complaints. He further asserted that he began experiencing more stomach pain
and frequent defecation in November 2019. Nurse Practitioner Moldenhauer (whose
first name does not appear in the record) and Dr. Mohammed Siddiqui adjusted his
medications, but the symptoms continued. This grievance was also denied as untimely
and duplicative of the first grievance, which remained under review.
Perez appealed the denials of the latter two grievances to the Administrative
Review Board, which affirmed both denials in February 2020. Around the same
time—over six months after he submitted the grievance—Perez’s first grievance
(No. 347-7-19) was denied based on the results of an investigation by the healthcare
unit. On February 24, 2020, Perez appealed that denial to the Board, which affirmed on
September 22, 2020.

-- 2 of 6 --

No. 24-1766 Page 3
Two months earlier, on July 27, 2020, Perez brought this deliberate-indifference
suit, alleging that the individual providers and Wexford Health Sources (the company
that contracted with the Illinois Department of Corrections to provide medical care to
prisoners) denied him effective treatment in violation of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His factual allegations were consistent with the
events described in his grievances, with three additional allegations relevant here:
(1) Siddiqui and Dr. Stephen Ritz denied him further testicular surgery when he was
experiencing discomfort after his testicular surgery in July 2019; (2) Siddiqui failed to
treat Perez’s testicular pain at the end of 2019; and (3) Wexford maintained a practice or
policy of denying care to cut costs and delaying care by understaffing medical
providers at Menard.
The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and allowed
four of the eight claims it identified to proceed: Count 2 against Locke and Zimmer for
their ineffective responses to Perez’s abdominal pain in June 2019; Count 3 against
Siddiqui and Ritz for denying follow-up testicular surgery; Count 5 against Siddiqui for
failing to effectively treat continued abdominal and testicular pain in November and
December 2019; and Count 7 against Wexford Health Sources for its practice of denying
and delaying treatment, resulting in the delayed care of Perez’s ruptured appendix and
denial of follow-up testicular surgery.1
The defendants moved for summary judgment for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA),
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The defendants argued that Perez failed to exhaust any grievance
concerning Count 2 against Zimmer and Locke and failed to file any grievance
concerning Counts 3, 5, and 7 against Ritz, Siddiqui, and Wexford.
After concluding that Perez failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to
Zimmer, Locke, Ritz, and Wexford (Counts 2, 3, and 7), the district court granted
summary judgment to these defendants and dismissed these claims without prejudice.
Specifically, it determined that Perez’s allegations against Zimmer and Locke (Count 2)
were unexhausted because Perez filed this lawsuit before the Administrative Review
Board’s six-month period to review his appeal of Grievance No. 347-7-19 expired. The
court also decided that Perez’s allegations about follow-up testicular surgery against
1 The court initially allowed Perez to proceed on Count 1 against two John Doe
correctional officers but later dismissed the claim after Perez failed to substitute named
defendants by the court’s deadline. He does not challenge that decision.

-- 3 of 6 --

No. 24-1766 Page 4
Ritz and Siddiqui (Count 3) and his allegations against Wexford (Count 7) were
unexhausted because none of the three grievances gave the prison a fair opportunity to
address his complaints.
For Perez’s remaining allegations against Siddiqui (Count 5), the court concluded
that Grievance No. 169-12-19 was timely submitted at all levels and fully exhausted.
The court therefore denied Siddiqui summary judgment on the allegation that Siddiqui
did not treat Perez’s abdominal pain. But because the grievance did not cover treatment
of his testicular pain, the court entered summary judgment on that allegation. Siddiqui
later moved for summary judgment on the merits of Count 5, which the court granted
because Perez failed to submit any evidence that Siddiqui denied him requested
treatment.2
On appeal, Perez first challenges aspects of the district court’s screening order,
which we review de novo, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true.
Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 994 (7th Cir. 2020).
Perez argues that the court should have allowed him to proceed on Count 8
against two grievance counselors for violating his due-process rights when reviewing
his grievances. But this argument is a non-starter because “the alleged mishandling
of … grievances by persons who otherwise did not cause or participate in the
underlying conduct states no claim.” Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).
Perez also contends that the district court erred by failing to identify a claim
against Moldenhauer. Although Perez mentioned Moldenhauer in his factual
allegations, his complaint did not list Moldenhauer as a defendant or seek relief against
him. Pro se complaints must be construed liberally at screening, see Perez v. Fenoglio,
792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015), but we cannot fault the court for failing to identify a
claim against Moldenhauer when Perez did not name him as a defendant.
Perez next challenges the district court’s entry of summary judgment on the
remaining claims for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, which we review
de novo. See Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). We take a strict
compliance approach to exhaustion under the PLRA. Id.
2 Perez’s opening brief does not challenge the district court’s grant of summary
judgment on the merits of Count 5, so any argument against that decision is waived.
See Bradley v. Village of University Park, 59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023).

-- 4 of 6 --

No. 24-1766 Page 5
Regarding Count 2, Perez argues that the district court wrongly decided that his
lawsuit was premature because prison officials delayed their response to Grievance
No. 347-7-19 by several months. But the state’s two-month period to respond to
grievances applies only “when reasonably feasible.” 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.830(e);
see Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 400 (7th Cir. 2004) (six-month delay acceptable to
resolve complex grievance). And in any event, Perez in fact received a first-level
response and appealed it to the Administrative Review Board before he filed this suit.
Cf. Reid v. Balota, 962 F.3d 325, 331 (7th Cir. 2020) (holding prisoner could commence
lawsuit where prison officials never responded to grievance). Accordingly, to fully
exhaust his remedies, he needed to wait out the Board’s six-month period to respond to
his appeal. See 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.850(e); Ford, 362 F.3d at 398. Because he only
waited five months, this grievance was unexhausted.
Perez alternatively argues that the two subsequent grievances are sufficient to
exhaust Count 2 because he reasserted his complaints against Zimmer and Locke. But
these October and December grievances were filed well beyond 60 days after the
underlying care from Zimmer and Locke, see 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.810(a), so they
cannot exhaust Count 2 either.
Next, regarding Count 3, Perez argues that the district court should not have
faulted him for failing to name Ritz or Siddiqui in Grievance No. 336-10-19 because he
did not know at the time who was responsible for approving surgeries. Perez is correct
that prisoners do not necessarily have to name all future defendants in their grievances.
See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th Cir. 2011). Rather, the key question is whether
the prisoner gave prison officials a fair opportunity to address the complaint. Id. But
here Perez failed to grieve that he asked anyone for additional surgery. True, in
Grievance No. 336-10-19 he sought surgery as a form of relief, but he did not complain
about any doctor having already denied it. The district court therefore correctly
concluded that none of Perez’s grievances gave the prison an opportunity to respond to
his claim that doctors denied him corrective surgery, as was required to exhaust.
Next, regarding Count 5, Perez argues that the district court erred by finding
Grievance No. 169-12-19 did not concern Siddiqui’s ineffective treatment of Perez’s
testicle even though the grievance officer found it duplicative of prior grievances
(which described testicular pain). But Count 5 specifically concerns treatment decisions
made by Siddiqui in November and December 2019. Although prior grievances
described testicular pain, those grievances concerned treatment by Zimmer and Locke
in June 2019 and treatment by unspecified nurses in July 2019. Accordingly, no

-- 5 of 6 --

No. 24-1766 Page 6
grievance was sufficient to give the prison an opportunity to address his complaint
against Siddiqui for the treatment of testicular pain in the relevant period.
Finally, Perez argues that the district court erred by finding Count 7 unexhausted
because prison policies contain no guidance about how to file a grievance against
Wexford. As with any other defendant, Perez did not necessarily have to name Wexford
in a grievance to exhaust this claim. See Maddox, 655 F.3d at 722. But this claim depends
on the underlying allegations that Perez’s treatment for his ruptured appendix in June
2019 was delayed and that his follow-up testicular surgery was denied. For the reasons
we have already explained, Perez failed to exhaust claims related to his appendix care
and failed to grieve claims related to the denial of testicular surgery.
We have reviewed Perez’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 6 of 6 --