Jones, Michael v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MICHAEL JERMAINE JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
AUSTIN OTTO, KEVIN DOE,
and NICHOLAS JOHNSON,
Defendants.1
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-30-jdp
Plaintiff Michael Jermaine Jones, proceeding without counsel, is currently incarcerated
at Columbia Correctional Institution. Jones alleges that when he was at the Wisconsin
Resource Center, he was sexually assaulted several times by inmates and staff, who are members
of the Aryan Brotherhood gang and targeted Jones because he is black. Jones also alleges that
when he filed grievances about these assaults, defendant Nicholas Johnson intentionally
performed a deficient investigation and did so because Jones is black. Dkt. 1. I granted Jones
leave to proceed on Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Johnson and two other
prison staff members. Dkt. 7. Defendants now move for partial summary judgment, contending
that Jones failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his claims against defendant
Johnson. Dkt. 23. For the reasons stated below, I will grant defendants’ motion for partial
summary judgment and dismiss Johnson from the case.
1 I have amended the caption to reflect defendant Johnson’s full name as provided by
defendants.
Case: 3:25-cv-00030-jdp Document #: 30 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 1 of 5

2
ANALYSIS
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).
Jones brings an Eighth Amendment claim against Johnson for intentionally performing
a deficient investigation into an assault that occurred in February 2024. Jones also brings a
Fourteenth Amendment claim based on his allegations that Johnson belongs to the Aryan
Brotherhood gang and mistreated Jones because he is black.
Defendant Johnson submits Jones’s grievance history report, Dkt. 25-1, and identifies
four grievances that he thinks Jones might say exhausted his claims. Johnson contends that
none of these grievances exhaust Jones’s claims, either because Jones didn’t fully exhaust them
or they weren’t about Johnson’s alleged misconduct. Jones did not file a response to defendants’
Case: 3:25-cv-00030-jdp Document #: 30 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 2 of 5

3
partial summary judgment motion, so I will accept the grievance records that Johnson filed in
support of his motion as undisputed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). But Johnson must still carry the
burden to show that summary judgment is appropriate. Johnson v. Gudmundsson, 35 F.3d 1104,
1112 (7th Cir. 1994).
A. WRC-2024-3272
In grievance No. WRC-2024-3272, Jones complained about sexual assault and burns
inflicted by prison staff and inmates on February 15, 2024. Dkt. 25-2. That is the incident
that precipitated Johnson’s investigation. But Johnson argues that this grievance cannot meet
the exhaustion requirement because Jones did not complain about Johnson’s investigation.
Johnson initiated his investigation and interviewed Jones on March 4, 2024, after Jones filed
grievance ’3272. I agree that this grievance doesn’t exhaust Jones’s claims because it didn’t
alert prison officials to Johnson’s alleged misconduct. See Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 650
(7th Cir. 2002) (“a grievance suffices if it alerts the prison to the nature of the wrong for which
redress is sought”).
B. WRC-2024-6718
In grievance No. WRC-2024-6718, Jones complained about a May 3, 2024 assault at
the hands of a staff member named Kevin. This grievance isn’t about Johnson’s handling of the
February 2024 assault, which is reason enough to conclude that it doesn’t exhaust Jones’s
claims against Johnson. Moreover, Jones didn’t appeal the dismissal of this grievance, so he did
not exhaust the grievance procedures as required by the PLRA.
C. WRC-2024-11628
In grievance No. WRC-2024-11628, Jones complained that he had been burned by
members of the Aryan Brotherhood, with him listing the date of the incident as July 22, 2024.
Case: 3:25-cv-00030-jdp Document #: 30 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 3 of 5

4
Dkt. 25-4. Jones did appeal the denial of this grievance. In his appeal, Jones claimed that the
burns were inflicted by inmates who were members of the Aryan Brotherhood and Latin Kings
gangs. He also mentioned that he had written to various prison staff, including captains, to
seek help, but he did not mention Johnson or Johnson’s investigation of his earlier grievance,
so the ’11628 grievance cannot meet the exhaustion requirement for his claims against
Johnson.
D. WRC-2024-12734
In grievance No. WRC-2024-12734, Jones complained that he was having trouble with
prison staff and inmates “playing games” with his canteen account. Dkt. 25-5. Grievance
’12734 does not mention Johnson’s investigation of Jones’s earlier grievance and was not
appealed, so it cannot meet the exhaustion requirement.
CONCLUSION
Because none of Jones’s grievances exhausted his administrative remedies for his claims
against Johnson, I will grant defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and I will
dismiss Johnson from the case. Dismissals for failure to exhaust are always without prejudice,
Ford v. Johnson, 362 F.3d 395, 401 (7th Cir. 2004), although it is probably too late for Jones to
properly exhaust his claims against Johnson.
This case will proceed with Jones’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against
defendants Austin Otto and Kevin Doe for sexually assaulting him.
Case: 3:25-cv-00030-jdp Document #: 30 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment, Dkt. 23, is GRANTED.
2. 	Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Johnson are DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. 	Defendant Johnson is DISMISSED from the case.
Entered February 4, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00030-jdp Document #: 30 Filed: 02/04/26 Page 5 of 5