Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA prisoner who spent nearly four years in solitary confinement failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a federal claim about his prison conditions. He also failed to budge a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision affirming judgment against him.
Indiana Department of Correction inmate Corey Crouch has been in IDOC custody for roughly 10 years. He was first assigned restrictive housing units – or solitary confinement – in February 2016.
Crouch was shifted from department to department over the years before being reclassified to the general population in December 2019. In total, he spent slightly less than four years in solitary confinement.
During that time Crouch received dozens of classification and status reports. There were two types of reports.
First, the “Report of Classification Hearing,” which begins as a generic form used for weekly reviews of new transfers, 90-day reviews and annual reviews. ROCHs are completed more frequently after a change in an inmate’s status. In total, Crouch received at least 35 ROCHS, most of which concerned his classification or status.
Second, a monthly “Department Administrative Restrictive Status Housing Review;” or 30-day review, a written status report mandated by Indiana law.
Crouch began receiving the 30-day review reports in November 2017. However, the report did not reference the appeal process until February 2019. He ultimately received 21 of those reviews and didn’t appeal any of them – before or after new language was added to explain the appeal process.
In March 2020, Crouch sued IDOC employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, among other things, violation of his due process rights because of his “prolonged placement in solitary confinement” which “did not receive meaningful review.”
However, the defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Crouch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Judge James P. Hanlon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted the motion on exhaustion grounds, citing Crouch’s failure to appeal any of the ROCHs or 30-day reviews.
The 7th Circuit affirmed, citing that Dole v. Chandler, 438 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006), Kaba v. Stepp, 458 F.3d 678, 680 (7th Cir. 2006), and Curtis v. Timberlake, 436 F.3d 709, 711 (7th Cir. 2005) all establish that a prisoner must exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a federal claim about prison conditions.
“Under these authorities we conclude that Crouch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Throughout his solitary confinement, Crouch had at least 56 opportunities to appeal a report or review, but he never did,” 7th Circuit Judge Michael Brennan wrote.
The 7th Circuit further noted that Crouch’s argument that the IDOC’s encouragement for inmates to appeal their 30-day reviews without a policy change was “akin to affirmative misconduct” is without merit.
“Crouch has provided no evidence of ‘affirmative misconduct’ by prison officials, and we find no conflict between the Classification Policy and the appellate language added to the 30-day reviews,” it concluded. “He has offered no evidence of misrepresentation by prison staff or the Department refusing to consider appeals from 30-day reviews.”
The case is Corey Crouch v. Richard Brown, et al., 21-2422
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.