Chicago, Illinois 60604 July 3, 2002 Before Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge… v. Thom As Page, et al. No. 97-323-GPM

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
July 3, 2002
Before
Hon. RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
Hon. TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge
No. 01-1973
MARCUS DIXON, Appeal from the United States
Plaintiff-Appellant, District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
v.
THOM AS PAGE, et al. No. 97-323-GPM
Defendants-Appellees.
G. Patrick Murphy,
Chief Judge.
ORDER
On June 11, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to amend our opinion of May 28,
2002, asserting that we did not correctly quote a representation made at oral argument.
Although we do not believe that the quotation in the Opinion was made in error, we
believe that the Opinion should be modified in the interest of clarity. Therefore, this
Opinion is hereby amended by deleting, on lines 8-9 and 12 of page 9 of the Slip
Opinion, the bold-faced text:
But counsel represented that under the grievance process in Illinois, Dixon could
appeal directly to the Director after waiting for thirty days to be transferred,
thus bypassing the initial steps required for the filing of a new grievance. See 20
Ill. Admin. Code § 504.850(a) (1998) (stating that “if after receiving a response . . .,
the committed person still feels that the problem, complaint or grievance has not
been resolved to his or her satisfaction, he or she may appeal in writing to the
Director within 30 days after receipt of the response”).

-- 1 of 2 --

Page 2 No. 01-1973
and substituting the following bold-faced text and adding the footnote:
But counsel represented that under the grievance process in Illinois, Dixon could
appeal directly to the Director if he had not, in fact, been transferred, thus
bypassing the initial steps required for the filing of a new grievance. See 20 Ill.
Admin. Code § 504.850(a) (1998) (stating that “if after receiving the response . . .,
the committed person still feels that the problem, complaint or grievance has not
been resolved to his or her satisfaction, he or she may appeal in writing to the
Director within 30 days after receipt of the response”).FN1
FN1. A prisoner in Dixon’s situation may face issues of timing. He must appeal
within 30 days of a “response.” The “response” in the present case would have
to include the failure to act on a decision to transfer, as well as, presumably, the
decision itself. (Otherwise, there would be nothing for the prisoner to appeal.)
And the date of the “response” would be difficult or impossible for the prisoner
to determine. An immediate appeal might be premature since the prison system
must be allowed some reasonable time (but no longer) to process a transfer
decision. Because the prisoner won a transfer decision, the burden should be on
the prison system to ensure that the prisoner is properly informed about when
he can appeal a delay in, or reversal of, his promised transfer.

-- 2 of 2 --