Summary
The court denied Demetrius Armour’s motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Armour argued that newly discovered evidence showed he had only 30 days to await a counselor’s response before proceeding to the next level of Illinois prison grievance procedures. The court held that the cited pilot program did not apply to his 2022 and 2023 grievances and reaffirmed that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Armour's motion should be analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or Rule 60(b).
- Whether Armour demonstrated a manifest error of law or fact or presented newly discovered evidence warranting alteration or amendment of the judgment.
- Whether the IDOC pilot grievance-program memorandum established that Armour was entitled to wait only 30 days for a counselor response before proceeding to the next grievance level.
- Whether delays in the IDOC grievance process excused Armour's failure to pursue his grievances through all available administrative levels before filing suit.
Holdings
- The motion was properly analyzed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because it was filed within 28 days of judgment and sought reconsideration based on alleged newly discovered evidence.
- Armour was not entitled to relief under Rule 59(e) because he showed neither a manifest error of law or fact nor newly discovered evidence that could warrant altering or amending the judgment.
- The delays Armour experienced did not render the IDOC grievance process unavailable, and he was required to continue pursuing his grievances through the available grievance levels before filing suit.
Key quotations
““[M]anifest error” is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party. It is the wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” (Discussion)
“Nevertheless, a motion to reconsider filed more than 28 days after entry of the challenged order “automatically becomes a Rule 60(b) motion.”” (Discussion)
Factual background
Armour, an Illinois prisoner, filed grievances concerning alleged inadequate treatment for flu-like symptoms in November 2022 and February 2023. He received counselor-level responses but did not pursue either grievance through the grievance officer and Administrative Review Board before filing his lawsuit. The IDOC pilot grievance program on which he relied began at Menard in September 2023, after his grievances were submitted, and the record did not show that it applied to them.
Procedural history
Armour alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his flu-like symptoms. The court previously granted defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the claims without prejudice because Armour had not properly exhausted the Illinois Department of Corrections grievance process before filing suit. Armour then moved for a new trial or reconsideration, relying on an IDOC pilot-program memorandum and renewing his argument that delays in receiving counselor responses excused further exhaustion.