Kidd, Robert v. Trankle et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ROBERT PIERRE KIDD,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. TRANKLE, ROBINSON, ADAMCZAK, LAACKE,
PANIAGUA, VIAN, and DOAK,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-35-jdp
Plaintiff Robert Pierre Kidd, proceeding without counsel, is a prisoner at Green Bay
Correctional Institution. Kidd alleges that when he was at New Lisbon Correctional Institution,
prison employees responded to his seizure by restraining his arms and legs rather than giving
him medical assistance. Defendants move for summary judgment on the grounds that Kidd
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. Dkt. 23. I will grant that
motion and dismiss the case.
ANALYSIS
Rather than respond to defendants’ exhaustion-based summary judgment motion,
Kidd filed multiple motions for recruitment of counsel and a motion to consolidate this case
with another of his cases. I denied each of these motions and twice extended Kidd’s deadline
to respond to the motion. Dkt. 32; Dkt. 36; Dkt. 40; Dkt. 45. In response to my most recent
order giving Kidd a final chance to respond, Kidd states that he is in solitary confinement and
has limited drafting supplies. Dkt. 46, at 5–6. Based on this response, even with limited
supplies, Kidd should have been able to respond to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Case: 3:25-cv-00035-jdp Document #: 47 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
So as I warned him in my previous order, I will now consider defendants’ motion without
Kidd’s response.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires inmates to exhaust all available
administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in federal court about “prison conditions.”
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). To comply with § 1997e(a), a prisoner must take each step in the
administrative process, Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002), which
includes following instructions for filing an initial grievance, Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d
714, 718 (7th Cir. 2005), as well as filing all necessary appeals, Burrell v. Powers, 431 F.3d 282,
284–85 (7th Cir. 2005), “in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules
require,” Pozo, 286 F.3d at 1025.
To exhaust administrative remedies in Wisconsin, inmates ordinarily must follow the
Inmate Complaint Review System process as set forth in Wisconsin Administrative Code
Chapter DOC 310. The purpose of these requirements is to give the prison administrators a
fair opportunity to resolve the grievance without litigation. Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 88–89
(2006). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies under § 1997e(a) is an affirmative defense
that must be proven by defendants. Davis v. Mason, 881 F.3d 982, 985 (7th Cir. 2018).
Kidd’s claims concern an October 29, 2024 incident in which he states that prison
employees responded to his seizure by restraining his arms and legs rather than giving him
medical assistance. Defendants submit Kidd’s prison grievance history and various grievance-
related materials. Dkt. 25. Because Kidd did not file a response to defendants’ summary
judgment motion, I will accept the grievance records that defendants filed in support of their
motion as undisputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). But defendants must still carry their burden to
Case: 3:25-cv-00035-jdp Document #: 47 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
show that summary judgment is appropriate. Johnson v. Gudmundsson, 35 F.3d 1104, 1112 (7th
Cir. 1994).
Defendants’ records show that shortly after the incident, Kidd submitted a grievance
stating that he had been cuffed during a seizure and that he was charged a co-pay to see a nurse
afterward. Dkt. 25-3. That grievance was marked received by staff on October 31, 2024, and
returned to Kidd the same day, with the grievance examiner stating that Kidd failed to follow
Wisconsin Administrative Code § DOC 310.07(1) by failing to attempt informal resolution of
his complaint about the co-pay first. Dkt. 25-4. The examiner directed Kidd to attempt
informal resolution and then refile the grievance within 10 days, as set forth in § DOC
310.10(5). There is no indication that Kidd refiled that particular grievance.
Kidd later filed a grievance solely about him being cuffed during his seizure, assigned
No. NLCI-2024-17145. Kidd signed that grievance on November 18, 2024, and it was marked
received by prison staff on November 25, 2024. Dkt. 25-2. The institution complaint examiner
rejected the grievance as untimely under Wisconsin Administrative Code § DOC 310.07(2),
which requires that grievances be filed within 14 days of the underlying incident. The examiner
noted that an inmate may ask for an exception to this deadline if he can show “good cause.”
Id. But Kidd did not ask for such an exception or attempt to make a showing of good cause.
These records show that Kidd didn’t properly follow the DOC grievance procedures.
Kidd’s initial grievance attempt was returned for failure to attempt informal resolution, and
his later grievance was untimely. And Kidd didn’t ask for a good-cause exception to his deadline
as required by DOC rules. Because Kidd failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, I will
grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismiss this case without prejudice. Ford
v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004).
Case: 3:25-cv-00035-jdp Document #: 47 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
There is a final matter to address. Along with his most recent submission, Kidd includes
a letter stating that he is frustrated with being unlawfully incarcerated, his various health
problems, and his treatment by prison staff, and he asks for an order “that [he] be put to sleep.”
Dkt. 46, at 1. I will direct defense counsel to share this letter with prison psychological services
staff. And I encourage Kidd not to give up hope.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on exhaustion grounds, Dkt. 23, is
GRANTED.
2. 	The case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	Counsel for defendants is directed to share plaintiff’s letter at pages 1–3 of Dkt. 46
with prison psychological services staff.
4. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Entered January 29, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00035-jdp Document #: 47 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4