Marshall v. Hyatt et al, No. 3:2020cv00811 - Document 48 (N.D. Ind. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The motion to reconsider 47 is DENIED as outlined in order. Signed by Judge Damon R Leichty on 09/22/2022. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(sej)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Marshall v. Hyatt et al Doc. 48 USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00811-DRL-MGG document 48 filed 09/22/22 page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION SHAWN MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. CAUSE NO. 3:20-CV-811-DRL-MGG HYATT, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Shawn Marshall, a prisoner without a lawyer, moves the court for reconsideration of the court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. ECF 47. The court granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion because the undisputed facts showed Mr. Marshall did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. ECF 45. Specifically, the undisputed facts showed that (1) Mr. Marshall submitted a grievance on July 9, 2020, which the grievance office properly rejected on July 15 because Mr. Marshall did not complete each part of the grievance form; and (2) Mr. Marshall submitted a revised grievance on July 28, which the grievance office properly rejected as untimely because Mr. Marshall had waited more than five business days to revise and resubmit the grievance. Id. at 2-3. In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Marshall argues he timely filed his July 9 grievance because it was received by the grievance office on July 13, only seven days after the incident complained of. ECF 47 at 2-3. But this argument does not warrant reconsideration, as the grievance office did not reject Mr. Marshall’s July 9 grievance as Dockets.Justia.com USDC IN/ND case 3:20-cv-00811-DRL-MGG document 48 filed 09/22/22 page 2 of 2 untimely, but rather rejected it because Mr. Marshall did not complete each part of the grievance form. See ECF 32-2 at 9-10 (to properly submit a grievance, “[e]ach part of the form shall be completed”). Therefore, Mr. Marshall’s assertion that he timely submitted his July 9 grievance does not demonstrate he exhausted his administrative remedies and, thus, does not warrant reconsideration of this court’s order granting summary judgment. For these reasons, the motion to reconsider (ECF 47) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. September 22, 2022 s/ Damon R. Leichty Judge, United States District Court 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
