LIMA v. CARTER et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RICHARD ALLEN LIMA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW
)
CARTER Doctor, 	)
TEAH Nurse Practitioner, 	)
RUNYON HSA, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE SURREPLY AND DENYING
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO EXHAUSTION
DEFENSE
Plaintiff Richard Lima filed this action contending that his constitutional
rights were violated when he received inadequate care for an infected abdominal
wound while he was housed at New Castle Correctional Facility ("New Castle").
Defendant Dr. Jason Carter moves for partial summary judgment arguing that
Mr. Lima failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as to any claim
against him as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") before filing
this lawsuit.1 For the reasons explained below, the motion, dkt. [33], is DENIED.
In addition, the Court notifies Dr. Carter of its intent to grant summary
judgment for Mr. Lima on the exhaustion issue.
1 Eighth Amendment claims are proceeding against Nurses Runyon and Teah, who
have withdrawn the exhaustion defense. Dkt. 46.
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
I.
Summary Judgment Standard
Parties in a civil dispute may move for summary judgment, a way to resolve
a case short of a trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate
when there is no genuine dispute over any of the material facts, and the moving
party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Pack v. Middlebury Comm.
Schs., 990 F.3d 1013, 1017 (7th Cir. 2021). A "genuine dispute" exists when a
reasonable factfinder could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). "Material facts" are those that
might affect the outcome of the suit. Id.
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the Court views the
record and draws all reasonable inferences from it in the light most favorable to
the nonmoving party. Khungar v. Access Cmty. Health Network, 985 F.3d 565,
572–73 	(7th 	Cir. 	2021). 	It 	cannot 	weigh 	evidence 	or 	make 	credibility
determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are left to the fact-
finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court need only
consider the materials cited by the parties, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); it need
not "scour the record" for evidence that could be relevant. Grant v. Trs. of Ind.
Univ., 870 F.3d 562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017) (cleaned up).
"[A] 	party 	seeking 	summary 	judgment 	always 	bears 	the 	initial
responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and
identifying 	those 	portions 	of 	'the 	pleadings, 	depositions, 	answers 	to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex
Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[T]he burden on the moving party
may be discharged by 'showing'—that is, pointing out to the district court—that
there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Id. at
325. In this case, Defendants have not met that burden.
II.
Factual Background
A. Plaintiff's Underlying Medical Issues and Claims Proceeding in this
Action
1. The medical issues
At all relevant times, Mr. Lima was an Indiana Department of Correction
("IDOC") inmate housed at New Castle.
On July 22, 2023, Mr. Lima underwent an exploratory laparotomy at St.
Vincent Anderson Hospital after he ingested sporks. Dkt. 34-3 at 16-18. The
surgeon found perforations of the bowel and duodenum. Id. Mr. Lima returned
to New Castle on August 10, 2023, and was admitted to the infirmary where he
remained until August 28. Id. at 18, 20. Dr. Carter was made aware of Mr. Lima's
return and ordered that Mr. Lima be provided antibiotics and pain medication.
Id. at 19.
On September 19, Mr. Lima submitted a request for health care in which
he stated that he was going to give up and let the infection kill him because he
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
was in so much pain. Id. at 22. That day, Dr. Carter issued an order for "stat
wound culture[.]" Id. at 5.
Nursing staff at New Castle cleaned Mr. Lima's wounds and did his
dressing care until September 20, when Mr. Lima refused a dressing change. Id.
at 1-2. The next day, nursing staff received a verbal order from Dr. Carter for Mr.
Lima to do his own dressing changes, and Mr. Lima was given supplies to do so.
Id. at 3.
On September 27, Mr. Lima saw the nurse to do the lab work per Dr.
Carter's order. Id. at 3−4. Dr. Carter was not involved in Mr. Lima's care after
September. Dkt. 34-2 at 2, ¶ 5. The lab results were received on October 1 and
showed that Mr. Lima had a staph infection. Dkt. 34-3 at 15. A non-defendant
nurse ordered antibiotics to treat the infection, and by October 20, the wound
had improved. Dkt. 34-3 at 8, 11.
On November 9, Mr. Lima was seen by defendant Nurse Teah, and Mr.
Lima reported that he had been changing his dressing as ordered but had run
out of supplies. Id. at 13. Nurse Teah continued his dressing order, and he
verbalized an understanding of the plan. Id. at 14.
Dr. Carter's last day working at New Castle was December 7, 2023.
Dkt. 34-2 at 2, ¶ 6.
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
2. The Amended Complaint and Screening Order
After the Court screened and dismissed Mr. Lima's original complaint,
dkt. 9, Mr. Lima filed an amended complaint on July 3, 2024, dkt. 10.
The amended complaint states that on December 17, 2023, Mr. Lima had
serious abdominal pain and an infection from an open wound. Id. at 2. He had
notified medical staff and they "reluctantly failed to tend to [his] serious medical
inquires." Id. at 2. He alleges that the defendants named in his amended
complaint deliberately refused to treat him and ignored the risk of infection. Id.
They also delayed him being sent to a hospital for additional treatment. Id. As to
Dr. Carter, Mr. Lima alleged that he was being sued because "he had [Mr. Lima]
changing [his own] dressing that lead [sic] "him" to catching [a] staph infection"
and caused him to vomit blood. Id. at 4.
The 	Court 	screened 	the 	amended 	complaint 	and 	allowed 	Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Carter and two nurses to
proceed. Dkt. 19 at 5.
3. Grievance Process
The IDOC has a standardized Offender Grievance Process that was in place
during the time Mr. Lima alleges his rights were violated. IDOC Policy and
Administrative 	Procedures 	00-02-301, 	Offender 	Grievance 	Process 	("IDOC
Grievance Process") is the IDOC's policy governing the grievance procedure and
provides how an inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies using that
procedure. Dkt. 34-1 at 1-2, 4-18. The purpose of the IDOC Grievance Process
"is 	to 	provide 	a 	process 	where 	offenders 	. 	. 	. 	may 	resolve 	concerns 	and
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
complaints relating to their condition of confinement" and to provide additional
communication channels for inmates to express areas of concern for efficient
and 	fair 	resolution. 	Id. 	at 	4. 	Inmates 	may 	submit 	grievances 	over 	issues
including 	policies, 	procedures, 	and 	rules 	of 	the 	IDOC 	or 	relevant 	facility,
including concerns related to medical care. Id. at 6.
During the relevant period, the grievance process consisted of three steps:
(1) submitting a formal grievance following unsuccessful attempts at informal
resolutions; (2) submitting a written appeal to the facility Warden/designee; and
(3) submitting a written appeal to the IDOC Grievance Manager. Dkt. 34-1 at 1-
2, 6. An inmate must submit his grievance no later than ten business days from
the date of the incident giving rise to the issue. Id. at 1-2, 12.
4. Mr. Lima's Grievances
At New Castle, Mr. Lima submitted three grievances about his medical
care: Grievance No. 24-171155, dated December 23, 2023, with an incident date
of December 17, 2023 (dkt. 34-1 at 19-27); Grievance No. 24-183940, dated June
11, 2024, with an incident date of June 10, 2024 (id. at 28-39); and Grievance
No. 24-193485, dated October 10, 2024, with the same incident date (id. at 40-
44).
Grievance No. 24-171155 is dispositive of the issue presented here. The
first-level grievance reads:
I have recently filled out a Health Care request pertaining to a
serious 	medical 	need 	in 	which 	the 	Facility 	and 	its 	medical
staff/personall [sic] has reluctantly failed to follow up on and see to
my medical inquiries As policy and administrative procedure 01-02-
101 states for Health care service under policy statement paragraph
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
3-4, All confined offenders shall have access to health services
necessary to treat serious medical conditions. The general categories
of 	services 	that 	shall 	be 	available 	are 	consultation, 	diagnosis,
evaluation, treatment and referral, emergency and routine medical
care shall be provided. But care provided will generally not include
care that is not necessary either because the care is ineffective or
the condition is not serious. Seriousness of a medical condition may
be judged by considering the conditions to cause death or disability,
to cause pain, or to cause significant problems with activities of daily
living. Part VII Access to Health Care: Paragraph 3-paragraph 3- All
staff persons who have received the proper training in First-aid and
cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) shall have an affirmative duty
to respond and provide any necessary services for which they have
been trained. These include services provided to offenders, staff, and
visitors at the facility. I have physical evidence to substantiate my
claims and medical staff witness. I am seeking that medical staff
attend to and answer medical request, as well as follow up on the
reported medical needs
Dkt. 34-1 at 27.
The grievance was responded to on February 16, 2024, with the response,
"According to AHSA Winningham, Patient was seen 2/1 by the provider and
again in NSC on 2/12. Patients' concerns are being addressed. Patient has been
approved for a CT scan which has been scheduled. Grievance addressed." Id. at
24.
Mr. Lima appealed the grievance on March 18, 2024, noting in relevant
part,
I do not have a medical license to be taking care of my own changing
without the right equipment. I feel like I have not been getting the
right medical help I need due to the lack of emergency attention I
am seeking resulting in medical malpractice. I have knots on the left
side of my stomach that hurts very badly and the pain level is
excruciating causing lack of sleep. . . A foul smell is coming from my
wound showing signs of an infection and needs serious attention
before spreading further.
Id. at 22 (minor spelling mistakes cleaned up).
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
A staff member responded that the facility could offer no relief as to Mr.
Lima's medical issues, only Centurion could, but Mr. Lima was scheduled for a
CT scan at an outside facility. Id.
Mr. Lima checked the box noting that he disagreed with the facility
response on March 22, 2024. Id. at 21. The Grievance Manager rejected the
grievance on the basis that Mr. Lima was being seen for his issues, had been
scheduled for a CT scan, and could express concerns about his treatment by
providing documentation to medical staff. Id. at 20.
B. Procedural history
Dr. Carter moves for summary judgment on the claims against him,
arguing that Mr. Lima failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies
under the PLRA before filing this lawsuit. Dkt. 33. Mr. Lima filed his response to
Dr. Carter's motion for summary judgment on July 7, 2025. Dkt. 38. Dr. Carter
filed his reply brief on July 17. Dkt. 40. That reply did not cite new evidence or
object to the admissibility of any evidence in Mr. Lima's brief. See id. On August
7, Mr. Lima filed a surreply which included new evidence in the form of a
declaration. Dkt. 41. Defendants subsequently filed a motion to strike, arguing
that the surreply is improper under Local Rule 56-1(d).
According to Local Rule 56-1(d),
A party opposing a summary judgment motion may file a surreply
brief only if the movant cites new evidence in the reply or objects to
the admissibility of the evidence cited in the response. The surreply
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
must be filed within 7 days after the movant serves the reply and
must be limited to the new evidence and objections.
Because the surreply violates Local Rule 56-1(d), the Court grants Dr.
Carter's motion to strike the surreply, dkt. [43]. The clerk is directed to strike
the surreply at Docket No. [41].
III. Discussion
The 	PLRA 	requires 	that 	a 	prisoner 	exhaust 	available 	administrative
remedies before suing over prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). "[T]he PLRA's
exhaustion requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether
they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they
allege excessive force or some other wrong." Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532
(2002) (citation omitted). "To exhaust administrative remedies, a prisoner must
comply strictly with the prison's administrative rules by filing grievances and
appeals as the rules dictate." Reid v. Balota, 962 F.3d 325, 329 (7th Cir. 2020)
(citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 (2006)). A "prisoner must submit
inmate complaints and appeals 'in the place, and at the time, the prison's
administrative rules require.'" Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652, 655 (7th Cir. 2004)
(quoting Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022, 1025 (7th Cir. 2002)).
Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Lima completed the three steps of the
grievance process as it related to Grievance No. 24-171155. Dr. Carter argues,
however, that "[e]ven if" this grievance "can be construed to apply" to him, it was
untimely as to any issue related to him because it was filed on December 23,
2023, with an incident date of December 17, 2023, yet he no longer worked for
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
New Castle as of December 7, 2023, and had not provided care to Mr. Lima since
September 2023. See dkt. 35 at 10-13.
As an initial matter, Mr. Lima's grievance sufficiently raised his concerns
about Dr. Carter's decisions. The IDOC Grievance Process does not require that
inmates name the individuals responsible for their issues. Rather, the purpose
of the grievance process is to alert the prison to the nature of the problem. See
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 219 (2007) ("[E]xhaustion is not per se inadequate
simply because an individual later sued was not named in the grievances."));
Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 995 (7th Cir. 2020) ("[A]n inmate's complaint
will suffice for exhaustion purposes if it provides notice to the prison of the
nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.") (cleaned up). The undisputed
evidence reflects that the subject matter of Grievance No. 24-171155 concerned
the medical issue at the heart of Mr. Lima's amended complaint, and that is
sufficient. See Schillinger, 954 F.3d at 995.
Second, Dr. Carter's argument that the grievance was untimely does not
show a failure to exhaust because IDOC grievance staff did not reject Mr. Lima's
grievance as untimely. The grievance was resolved on the merits. When a prison
resolves a grievance on the merits, the plaintiff's obligation as to exhaustion has
been satisfied. See Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 721-22 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Where
prison officials address an inmate's grievance on the merits without rejecting it
on procedural grounds, the grievance has served it function of alerting the state
and inviting corrective action, and defendants cannot rely on the failure to
exhaust defense."); see also Conyers v. Abitz, 416 F.3d 580, 584 (7th Cir. 2005)
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 10 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
("We have held that a prison grievance rejected solely on the basis of untimeliness
will not fulfill the exhaustion requirement. We have also explained, however, that
if prison administrators choose to consider the merits of an untimely grievance,
then the claim has been exhausted."). This is particularly true here, when Mr.
Lima's medical issue related to his post-surgery wound was ongoing. See Turley
v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013) ("In order to exhaust their
remedies, prisoners need not file multiple, successive grievances raising the
same issue (such as prison conditions or policies) if the objectionable condition
is continuing.").
Because it is undisputed that Mr. Lima completed the grievance process
as to Grievance No. 24-171155 and that it related to the medical care at issue in
this case, the Court finds that Mr. Lima is entitled to summary judgment on the
exhaustion defense.
IV. Conclusion
Dr. Carter's motion to strike surreply, dkt. [43], is granted. The clerk is
directed to strike the surreply at docket 41.
Dr. Carter's partial motion for summary judgment, dkt. [33], is denied.
Further, under Rule 56(f)(1), the Court gives Dr. Carter notice of its intent to
grant summary judgment in Mr. Lima's favor on the issue of exhaustion. Dr.
Carter has through April 6, 2026, to show cause why summary judgment
should not be granted. Alternatively, he may withdraw his affirmative defense by
this date.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 3/10/2026
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 11 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Distribution:
RICHARD ALLEN LIMA
234256
NEW CASTLE - CF
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY - Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
P.O. Box E
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Case 1:24-cv-00598-JPH-CSW Document 54 Filed 03/10/26 Page 12 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>