Maholmes, Antonio v. Monk, Conner et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
ANTONIO MAHOLMES, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONNER MONK, PETE BORCHARDT, KEVIN
ORZECH, DANE MATHWICH, JODIE WILHELM,
BRADLEY WEEKS, and JAMES ZIMMERMAN,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-76-jdp
Plaintiff Antonio Maholmes, Jr., proceeding without counsel, alleges that staff at the
Lincoln County jail subjected him to a strip search and used excessive force on him, in violation
of the Fourth Amendment. Some of the defendants move for summary judgment on the ground
that Maholmes did not exhaust his administrative remedies. Dkt. 31. For the reasons below, I
will deny the motion.
ANALYSIS
The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) requires prisoners, including jail
detainees, to exhaust all available administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions
under federal law. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). This means that a prisoner must take each step in the
administrative process, which includes following instructions for filing “complaints and appeals
in the place, and at the time, the prison’s administrative rules require.” Pozo v. McCaughtry,”
286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002). But a prisoner’s failure to exhaust is an affirmative
defense that the defendants must prove. Davis v. Mason, 881 F.3d 982, 985 (7th Cir. 2018).
Case: 3:25-cv-00076-jdp Document #: 48 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3

2
In this case, the Lincoln County jail requires detainees to “submit [a grievance] in
writing within five days of the occurrence to the corrections officer.” Dkt. 33-1, at 8. The strip
search and use of force occurred on October 12, 2024, so jail rules required Maholmes to file
a grievance by October 17, 2024. Maholmes admits that he did not file any grievances related
to the claims in this case, but he says in his declaration, Dkt. 43, that he was unable to file a
grievance for the following reasons:
• 	On October 12, he was placed in observation status.
• 	Between October 12 to October 20, he made several requests to jail staff to file a
grievance, but he was denied grievance forms and writing utensils.
• 	He did not have access to grievance forms and a pencil until he was released from
observation status on October 20.
A prisoner is not required to exhaust a grievance process that is unavailable, and the
grievance process is not available if the prisoner does not have access to the materials he needs
to file a grievance, including grievance forms and something to write with. Hill v. Snyder, 817
F.3d 1037, 1041 (7th Cir. 2016). That is what Maholmes is alleging in this case.
Maholmes acknowledges that he could have filed a grievance on October 20, but that
was too late. The jail handbook sets a five-day deadline for filing grievances, and that deadline
passed on October 17. The handbook identifies no exceptions to the five-day deadline, so
Maholmes would not be required to file a late grievance or ask for an extension of the deadline.
See King v. McCarty, 781 F.3d 889, 896 (7th Cir. 2015).
Defendants dispute that Maholmes was in observation status until October 20. They
say he was released on October 16, and he was then given a jail handbook, which explained
the grievance process. Dkt. 45, ¶¶ 5, 6. Defendants appear to be conceding that jail staff did
not inform Maholmes about the grievance process until October 16, and he could not have
Case: 3:25-cv-00076-jdp Document #: 48 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3

3
filed a grievance before then. See Hernandez v. Dart, 814 F.3d 836, 842 43 (7th Cir. 2016)
(burden is on prison officials to prove that prisoner had notice of grievance procedures). That
would give Maholmes one day to file a grievance. But even I assume that one day would have
been enough time to make the grievance process available to Maholmes, defendants are not
entitled to summary judgment because defendants cite no evidence disputing Maholmes’s
averments in his declaration that he did not have access to grievance forms or writing utensils
to submit a grievance. Defendants cite a statement in the jail handbook that “[g]rievance forms
can be found in the cell blocks or given upon request.” Dkt. 45, ¶ 7 (citing Dkt. 33-1, at 8).
But that is just a line on a piece of paper. Defendants do not cite any evidence that forms (and
writing utensils) were actually available to Maholmes before October 17.
Defendants have not met their burden to show that Maholmes did not exhaust his
available administrative remedies. Accordingly, I will deny defendants’ motion for summary
judgment.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 31, is DENIED.
Entered January 16, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00076-jdp Document #: 48 Filed: 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3