Chezum v. Simmons et al

Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MICAH CHEZUM,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CHRISTINA SIMMONS, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:24-CV-1658-MAB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Jason Furlow, Niel Kellerman, Rose
Loos, and Christina Simmons’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion
(Doc. 37). The Court initially reviewed and denied Defendants’ motion as to Counts 1
and 2 because the evidence demonstrated genuine issues of material fact existed, thereby
precluding summary judgment in Defendants’ favor (see Doc. 46).1 However, pursuant to
Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), the Court provided Defendants with the
option to request an evidentiary hearing if they wished to further contest the specific,
dispositive factual issues of whether: (1) Plaintiff timely appealed Grievance No. K4-1023-
1130 to the ARB, but that appeal was then lost, destroyed, or ignored; and (2) Plaintiff
timely filed another grievance addressing the issues raised in Counts 1 and 2 of his
Complaint, which was then lost, destroyed, or ignored (see Doc. 46 at pp. 16-17).
1 Conversely, the Court’s Order granted Defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion on
Count 3 for the reasons stated therein (see Doc. 46 at pp. 16-17). Therefore, Count 3 has already been
dismissed without prejudice and is not further considered or discussed in this Order (see Id.).
Case 3:24-cv-01658-MAB Document 56 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 3
Defendants timely made such a request (Doc. 47) and a Pavey hearing was held on
February 24, 2026 (see Docs. 52, 53). At that hearing, the Court heard testimony from
Plaintiff, ARB Chairperson Jeremy Bonnett, and Menard Grievance Officer Lance Phelps
(Doc. 55).
For the reasons stated on the record, including the consistency of Plaintiff’s
testimony, the additional evidence supporting his claimed attempts to file relevant
grievances and appeal Grievance No. K4-1023-1130 to the ARB, and Defendants’ failure
to cast any doubt on or identify any holes in Plaintiff’s version of events, the Court finds
Defendants have not met their burden of proof by demonstrating that Plaintiff did not
exhaust his administrative remedies as to Counts 1 and 2 (Id.). Consequently, Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion is DENIED as to Counts 1
and 2 (Doc. 37).
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Issue of Exhaustion is
DENIED as to Counts 1 and 2 (Doc. 37). Accordingly, this matter shall proceed on
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims raised in Counts 1 and 2 (see Docs. 18, 46). The stay
on merits-based discovery (see Doc. 33 at pp. 5-6) is LIFTED and the parties can proceed
with discovery on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims in Counts 1 and 2. A new schedule will
be entered by separate order.
Case 3:24-cv-01658-MAB Document 56 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 24, 2026
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01658-MAB Document 56 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>