Carter v. Towell et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JASON MICHAEL CARTER, 	)
Y44952, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
) 	Case No. 25-cv-1695-DWD
vs. 	)
)
MR. TOWELL, 	)
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDER, 	)
ILL. DEPT. OF CORR., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Jason Michael Carter, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections
(IDOC) currently detained at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, brings this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of his constitutional rights.
Plaintiff alleges that in late-August of 2025 he voiced concerns about his mental health
but did not get adequate care. Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is now before the Court for
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 	Under Section 1915A, the Court is
required to screen prisoner complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a)-(b). 	Any portion of a complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money damages from a
defendant who by law is immune from such relief must be dismissed. 	28 U.S.C. §
1915A(b). At this juncture, the factual allegations of the pro se complaint are to be liberally
construed. Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
Case 3:25-cv-01695-DWD Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

The Complaint
On August 26, 2025, Plaintiff informed Defendant Towell that he was still hearing
voices and that the voices were telling him to kill himself, thus he asked to speak with
mental health. 	Towell allegedly said, “at least your alone in your cell, lets hope your
meds start working soon.” (Doc. 1 at 5). Plaintiff was then instructed to return to his cell.
Plaintiff alleges in this lawsuit that Towell exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious
mental health needs, that Towell’s conduct amounted to cruel and unusual punishment,
and that Towell violated his right to equal protection. Plaintiff’s complaint was signed
August 28, 2025. 	On the complaint form, he checked boxes indicating he submitted a
grievance about this issue, but that the grievance had not yet been returned from the
highest level of review. (Doc. 1 at 4).
Analysis
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) provides that a prisoner may not bring
a lawsuit about prison conditions unless and until he has exhausted all available
administrative remedies. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Pavey, 544 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 2008).
For a prisoner to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, the prisoner must “file
complaints and appeals in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules
require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). “[A] prisoner who does
not properly take each step within the administrative process has failed to exhaust state
remedies.” Id. at 1024. 	Although it is generally appropriate to wait for a defendant to
raise an affirmative defense, the Seventh Circuit has noted that “when the existence of a
valid affirmative defense is so plain from the face of the complaint that the suit can be
Case 3:25-cv-01695-DWD Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

regarded as frivolous, the district judge need not wait for an answer before dismissing
the suit.” Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005, 1009 (7th Cir. 2002). A plaintiff can plead
himself out of court, and if he includes allegations “that show he isn’t entitled to a
judgment, he’s out of luck.” Early v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 959 F.2d 75, 79 (7th Cir.
1992) (citations omitted).
On October 17, 2025, the Court directed Plaintiff to show cause about his
exhaustion of administrative remedies and indicated that it was not apparent from the
face of the pleadings that there was any emergency basis to overlook the grievance
requirements. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff has timely responded. (Doc. 7). In response, Plaintiff
argues that he should not be forced to sustain actual harm before being able to seek
recourse. He admits that he still has not finished the grievance process, or at least that he
had not finished it by the time he filed his complaint. Instead, he argues that he should
be allowed to proceed because mental health is serious, and he should not be forced to
actually hurt himself before seeking help.
Plaintiff is confusing the merits of his claim with the procedural requirement that
he exhaust a claim at the prison before filing a lawsuit. While Plaintiff is correct that he
need not necessarily sustain bodily harm before filing a potentially successful lawsuit for
deliberate indifference, he must procedurally complete an available grievance process.
This is for the basic reason that prisons are much better suited to respond to day-to-day
problems of inmate life than the Court is. The Illinois Department of Corrections has an
emergency grievance process to afford inmates expedited review for sensitive issues. 20
Ill. Admin. Code § 504.840 (providing that if there is a substantial risk of imminent
Case 3:25-cv-01695-DWD Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

personal injury, an inmate may file an emergency grievance, and the chief administrative
officer shall review it expediently to determine if it should be handled on a rush basis).
An inmate must use the grievance process before initiating a federal lawsuit and asking
the Court to intervene. 	Plaintiff filed his suit within two days of his interaction with
Defendant Towell. 	This is simply not enough time for even the emergency grievance
process to have an opportunity to provide relief. Fletcher v. Menard Corr. Ctr., 623 F.3d
1171 (7th Cir. 2010) (finding that there was no imminent danger reason to excuse the
inmate’s failure to exhaust prior to suing where his IDOC prison had an emergency
grievance process, and he sued just two days after filing a grievance).
Furthermore, Plaintiff has not said anything in his complaint or in his response to
show cause that suggests his situation has worsened since late August, or that he remains
in an active mental health emergency. On the available facts, Plaintiff has clearly sued
first and has not afforded the exhaustion process any reasonable opportunity to afford
relief. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for failure
to exhaust. This does not prevent Plaintiff from filing a new suit once he receives a final
grievance response.
Case 3:25-cv-01695-DWD Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

DISPOSITION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Complaint is dismissed without
prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit as required
by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 17, 2025
/s/ David W. Dugan
________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01695-DWD Document 8 Filed 12/17/25 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>