Mansour Mohammad v. Jacqueline Lashbrook

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 30, 2023*
Decided July 5, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-1520
MANSOUR MOHAMMAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 19-cv-756-RJD
Reona J. Daly,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Mansour Mohammad, an Illinois inmate, appeals a summary judgment order
against him based on his failure to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his
claims that conditions at his prison violated the Eighth Amendment. Because the
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 5 --

No. 22-1520 Page 2
undisputed facts show that Mohammad did not exhaust the prison’s administrative
remedies in the time and manner required, we affirm.
Under the grievance procedures of the Illinois Department of Corrections, an
inmate must first try to resolve a grievance with his institutional counselor. If the
grievance is not resolved by the counselor, the inmate may submit it to a grievance
officer explaining “what happened, when, where and the name of each person who is
the subject of or who is otherwise involved in the complaint.” 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE
§ 504.810(c). The officer then reviews the grievance and, within two months if feasible,
issues a report of findings and recommendations to the chief administrative officer
(generally, the warden), who issues a written decision to the inmate. Id. § 504.830(e).
The inmate then has 30 days to appeal that decision to the administrative review board;
the appeal must include copies of the responses of the grievance officer and warden. Id.
§ 504.850(a). An inmate may request an emergency review of a grievance by the
warden, but if the warden determines it is not an emergency, the inmate must resubmit
the grievance using the standard process. Id. § 504.840(c).
Between November 2016 and January 2019, Mohammad filed seven grievances
related to conditions at Menard Correctional Center. Five were submitted to his
institutional counselor, and two were submitted as emergency grievances, though the
warden, Jacqueline Lashbrook, declined emergency review. Mohammad appealed each
grievance to the administrative review board, but they were returned without review. A
grievance from November 2016 was returned because it was not appealed within 30
days of Lashbrook’s decision, and the other six were returned because Mohammad had
not included the required responses from the grievance officer and warden.
Mohammad sued Menard officials for violating his constitutional rights. A
magistrate judge, presiding by the parties’ consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), screened his
complaint, see id. § 1915A. The court allowed him to proceed on four claims against
Lashbrook, three correctional officers, and a dietary officer. Mohammad alleged that,
due to prison overcrowding, he was (1) housed in extreme temperature conditions,
(2) not provided cleaning supplies, (3) served expired and otherwise unsafe food, and
(4) denied adequate winter boots.
Lashbrook and the three correctional officers moved for summary judgment
arguing that Mohammad had not exhausted his administrative remedies before filing
suit, as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Act
provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under
section 1983 … until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” Id.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 22-1520 Page 3
To exhaust administrative remedies, an inmate must file grievances and appeals in the
place, at the time, and in the manner that the prison requires. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S.
81, 87 (2006) (citing Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)). A remedy is
considered not “available” when its requirements are opaque, or prison officials
improperly prevent a prisoner from pursuing it. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 643–44
(2016).
The court held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Mohammad had
exhausted his administrative remedies. See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739, 742
(7th Cir. 2008). At the hearing, Mohammad testified that he had properly utilized the
grievance process. Regarding his non-emergency grievances, Mohammad stated that he
“immediately” resubmitted them to a grievance officer after they were denied by his
counselor, but prison officials had returned them without a response from the grievance
officer or warden. As for the two emergency grievances, because Lashbrook declined to
expedite them, Mohammad testified that he believed that her decision was final, and so
he sent those grievances directly to the administrative review board instead of starting
the grievance process from the beginning.
Concerning his grievance from November 2016, Mohammad claimed that upon
his arrival at Menard he was provided only one bed sheet and was not issued a laundry
bag or winter boots. His counselor responded that a laundry bag would be provided,
but that each inmate receives only one bed sheet, and boots were “for workers only.”
Mohammad grieved the issue through the administrative process and received a
response from Lashbrook denying the grievance. Mohammad signed the appeal section
of the form three weeks later, but the administrative review board did not receive it for
another two weeks. The administrative review board denied the appeal as untimely
because it was not received within 30 days of Lashbrook’s response.
Grievance Officer Kelly Pierce also testified. According to Pierce, each grievance
that is reviewed by a counselor is logged in an inmate’s “cumulative counseling
summary,” and the inmate is sent a receipt. After a counselor’s initial review, the
original grievance is returned to the inmate with a response. The inmate may appeal the
counselor’s decision by submitting it to a grievance officer for second-level review. Any
grievance submitted to a grievance officer is logged again and another receipt is sent.
Pierce explained that prison records showed Mohammad had filed the non-emergency
grievances with his counselor, but none had been logged for second-level review, and
each one lacked a grievance officer’s response. Pierce also said that one of Mohammad’s
emergency grievances had not been logged for review at all, and the other had been

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 22-1520 Page 4
reviewed only by his counselor. Finally, Pierce testified that the grievance office does
not track the date an inmate sends an appeal to the administrative review board.
The court entered judgment in favor of Lashbrook and the correctional officers,
concluding that Mohammad failed to exhaust his remedies before filing suit. The court
did not find credible Mohammad’s testimony that he had submitted the non-emergency
grievances to a grievance officer for second-level review because it was “unclear” and
conflicted with Pierce’s testimony and prison records showing that the grievances were
not logged. The court also found that Mohammad had not exhausted the two
emergency grievances because he admitted that he had not submitted them through the
standard process after Lashbrook declined to expedite them.
The court found that Mohammad timely appealed to the administrative review
board the November 2016 grievance. The court credited Mohammad’s testimony that he
submitted the appeal within 30 days of Lashbrook’s written rejection, and the
defendants had not explained the two-week delay in its receipt by the administrative
review board. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the grievance was not properly
exhausted against any of the defendants because it did not name them as required.
The court also said that it would enter judgment for the dietary officer, Lloyd
Hanna, unless Mohammad provided additional evidence that he had exhausted the one
grievance related to his dietary concerns. Mohammad responded only that Hanna had
not moved for summary judgment, so the court entered judgment for Hanna.
Mohammad appeals. We review the entry of summary judgment based on a
failure to exhaust administrative remedies de novo and factual findings for clear error.
Ramirez v. Young, 906 F.3d 530, 533 (7th Cir. 2018).
Mohammad first argues that summary judgment for the defendants was
improper because they rendered the grievance procedures unavailable. Specifically, he
says that prison officials refused to respond to his non-emergency grievances, which
prevented him from appealing their denials through the administrative process.
But the court did not err in finding that Mohammad’s testimony on this point
was not credible. Although Mohammad testified that he never received responses from
a grievance officer after he submitted the non-emergency grievances for second-level
review, the cumulative counseling summary undermines his account. The counseling
summary reveals that the grievances were logged for review with Mohammad’s
counselor but were never logged for second-level review with a grievance officer. When

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 22-1520 Page 5
the administrative review board rejected the appeals for failing to include the responses
from the second level of review, Mohammad never resubmitted the appeals with the
required responses. Accordingly, Mohammad failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies as to the non-emergency grievances.
Regarding the two emergency grievances, Mohammad now argues that he tried
to resolve them through the standard process but did not receive a response from a
grievance officer. But this assertion conflicts with his own testimony at the Pavey
hearing and is not supported by the counseling summary. Mohammad testified that he
believed that Lashbrook’s denial of emergency review was a final decision he could
directly appeal to the administrative review board. But that is incorrect. An inmate
must resubmit grievances deemed a non-emergency by the warden through the
standard grievance process. Williams v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 957 F.3d 828, 832
(7th Cir. 2020); 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.840(c). And Mohammad admitted that he did
not do so.
Next, Mohammad contends that he exhausted the November 2016 grievance, for
which he followed the appropriate procedures. He argues that Lashbrook and one of
the named correctional officers knew about his request for additional sheets and winter
boots even though he did not name them in the grievance. To be sure, a prisoner “is not
required to know the name of the prison employee whom he’s complaining about,” but
he must include as much descriptive information about the individual and the event as
possible so that prison officials are alerted to the target of the grievance. Roberts v. Neal,
745 F.3d 232, 235–36, (7th Cir. 2014); see 20 I LL. A DMIN . C ODE § 504.810(c). But the court
correctly concluded that Mohammad failed to exhaust his remedies on this claim
against these defendants because the grievance does not identify any of the defendants
or describe any events in which they would have been personally involved.
Finally, Mohammad challenges the court’s entry of summary judgment for
Hanna. But we see no error. A district court may enter summary judgment without a
motion if the party against whom it is entered has notice that the court is considering
summary judgment and is given an opportunity to respond. Golden Years Homestead,
Inc. v. Buckland, 557 F.3d 457, 461–62 (7th Cir. 2009). The court said that it would enter
judgment in Hanna’s favor absent additional evidence showing that Mohammad had
exhausted his administrative remedies. Mohammad responded, but he failed to furnish
any further evidence.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --