Court Bashes Prisoner Grievance System In Free Exercise Case

An Illinois federal district court this week, in a prisoner free exercise case, adopted a magistrate's report and recommendation that is highly critical of the Illinois prison system's administrative grievance system. In Spivey v. Love, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151705 (SD IL, Oct. 23, 2012), magistrate's recommendation at 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152179, Sept. 14, 2012, an inmate sued complaining that as he was transferred to 3 different Illinois correctional facilities, his religious affiliation got incorrectly listed as Protestant rather than Jewish, and he was unable to get the error corrected.  In the process he was also denied a vegetarian diet and his Jewish Bible was confiscated. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the inmate had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the prison grievance system.  The magistrate's opinion (which the court adopted) denied defendants' motion, saying the following:

The IDOC has a three-step process that prisoners under their jurisdiction are required to follow in order to exhaust administrative remedies.....

The circumstances of this case are illustrative of the all-to-common scenario in cases involving prison institutions under the authority of the IDOC of failed attempts by defendants in prisoner litigation to successfully litigate the failure to exhaust administrative remedies defense. Counsel for the defendants is hardly to blame for these failures. Rather, it is a reflection of the negligent handling of prisoner grievances within the prison institutions.

With the possible exception of ... step three, it appears as if there is no documented system for tracking grievances as they make their way through the various phases of exhaustion. Under the present system, a grievant must put his faith in prison staff to deliver the grievance to the appropriate location without receiving any type of return receipt verifying that the grievance had been delivered successfully. When the prisoner does not hear anything regarding the grievance, he must beg prison staff for morsels of information regarding its status (all of this while the 60-day clock for filing grievances is ticking). If the prisoner is fortunate enough to get a response from his counselor at step one, he must restart the process of relying on prison staff to get his grievance to the right place, again absent any verification of receipt. The present system causes loads of unnecessary confusion among both the grievant and the prison staff involved in processing the grievances. In addition, the absence clear information regarding what happened to a particular grievance makes defendant counsel's task of meeting their burden of proof on the exhaustion defense next to impossible.

It would seem apparent that this mass confusion could be eliminated by the implementation of a basic grievance tracking and receipt system.