Anthony Boyce v. Ashley Cox

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 24-1796
• Status: Published
• Author: Pryor

Opinion

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-1796 ANTHONY BOYCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.

ASHLEY COX and FRANCIS CATINO, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. 1 No. 23-cv-03175 — Jonathan E. Hawley, Magistrate Judge. ____________________

ARGUED SEPTEMBER 3, 2025 — DECIDED MARCH 17, 2026 ____________________

Before SCUDDER, KIRSCH, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PRYOR, Circuit Judge. Anthony Boyce, a prisoner at Western Illinois Correctional Center, proceeding without a lawyer, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the prison dentist Dr. Francis Catino and dental assistant Ashley Cox were de- liberately indifferent to his need for dental care, in violation

1 Judge Hawley is now a district judge in the Central District of Illinois. 2 No. 24-1796

of the Eighth Amendment. On appeal, Boyce claims the dis- trict court erred in granting summary judgment for the de- fendants on the ground that he failed to exhaust his adminis- trative remedies within the prison as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). After careful review of the record as well as the written and oral arguments of counsel, we reverse in part, af- firm in part, and remand. I. BACKGROUND A. Conduct Underlying Boyce’s Suit We review a “grant of summary judgment de novo, con- struing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Johnson v. Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818, 824 (7th Cir. 2021). We do not vouch for the objective truth of these facts or take any position on Boyce’s ultimate chance of success on the merits. Berry v. Pe- terman, 604 F.3d 435, 438 (7th Cir. 2010). Boyce, an inmate at Western, experienced extreme tooth pain and requested dental care from Western medical staff. In July 2022, Western’s medical director, Dr. Trusewych, exam- ined Boyce and found cavities, swollen gums, abscesses, and bleeding. Due to the seriousness of Boyce’s condition, Dr. Trusewych referred Boyce to Western’s dental staff. That day, Boyce saw Dr. Catino, who examined him and informed Boyce that he had a hole in his tooth. Boyce re- quested “to have [his] teeth filled,” “to be sent out to [a] spe- cialist,” and “to have [his] teeth cleaned.” Dr. Catino declined, explaining that Boyce could not get his teeth cleaned at West- ern. Instead, Dr. Catino scheduled a tooth extraction for Boyce. The dental assistant, Cox, when speaking with Boyce, also informed him that Western did not clean teeth or give out No. 24-1796 3

mouthwash to prisoners. Boyce was prescribed “antibiotic pills and told he would be put in for tooth fillings for his cav- ities.” B. Illinois Prisoner Grievance Process As a prisoner at Western, Boyce was required to follow the Illinois grievance process outlined in the state’s prison proce- dural rules. Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). In Illinois, a prisoner must first submit a grievance usually within 60 days after the discovery of the incident giving rise to the grievance. 20 ILL. ADMIN. CODE § 504.810(a). The griev- ance officer then considers the grievance and forwards his findings and recommendation to the Chief Administrative Officer. Id. at § 504.830(e). If unsatisfied with the response from the Chief Administrative Officer, the inmate may appeal to the Administrative Review Board within 30 days, which will then submit a recommendation to the Director of Illinois Department of Corrections. Id. at § 504.850(a), (d). The Direc- tor issues the Department’s final determination. Id. at § 504.850(e). C. Boyce’s Grievance On September 20, 2022, Boyce submitted a grievance form stating he was experiencing extreme tooth pain. Boyce ex- plained that since November 2021 he had been asking for his teeth to be cleaned and that his teeth hurt. The grievance re- layed that Boyce had been examined by Dr. Catino in July 2022, and Dr. Catino observed a hole in Boyce’s tooth. The grievance stated that Dr. Catino informed Boyce that the fa- cility did not clean teeth and that Boyce would need to have his tooth extracted. As relief, Boyce again requested “to have 4 No. 24-1796

[his] teeth filled” and “to be sent out to [a] specialist … to have [his] teeth cleaned.” On September 26, 2022, Boyce saw Dr. Catino and Cox again. They again told Boyce they did not clean teeth at West- ern. They also notified Boyce that they would not send him out of the facility to have his teeth cleaned. Boyce indicated he did not feel well and asked for the extraction to be resched- uled. Dr. Catino and Cox agreed to reschedule the extraction. In November 2022, a grievance counselor reviewed Boyce’s grievance and replied to Boyce’s complaint. Next, a grievance officer determined that because Boyce’s tooth ex- traction was being rescheduled, the grievance should be deemed moot. The Chief Administrative Officer concurred with the grievance officer’s recommendation. Not satisfied with the Chief Administrative Officer’s response, Boyce filed an appeal through the Administrative Review Board. On rec- ommendation by the Board, the Director of the Illinois De- partment of Corrections denied Boyce’s appeal on January 30, 2023. D. District Court Proceedings A few months later, Boyce, proceeding pro se, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Dr. Catino and Cox were de- liberately indifferent to his need for adequate dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Boyce attached the Sep- tember 20, 2022 grievance to his complaint. 2 The same day

2 Boyce also attached a different grievance he submitted to prison officials in February 2023 alleging similar issues with his teeth, but that grievance is not at issue in this appeal. No. 24-1796 5

he filed his complaint, Boyce filed a motion asking for per- mission to file a class action lawsuit. Fulfilling the screening obligation imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C § 1915A, the district court concluded that Boyce had successfully alleged an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Catino and Cox “for their alleged deliberate indifference to [Boyce’s] serious den- tal needs.” The district court denied, however, Boyce’s motion to file a class action lawsuit, reasoning that “a prisoner bring- ing a pro se action cannot represent a class of plaintiffs.” Dr. Catino and Cox then moved for summary judgment on the ground that Boyce had not complied with the exhaustion re- quirement of the PLRA. Boyce responded, arguing that he had materially complied with the PLRA in light of his griev- ance filed on September 20, 2022. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for failure to exhaust Boyce’s Eighth Amendment claim. 3 Boyce, now represented by counsel, appeals. II. DISCUSSION Boyce raises two issues on appeal. First, Boyce argues that the district court erred in concluding that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Second, he maintains that the district court erred in denying his motion for class certifica- tion. We take both arguments in turn.

3 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of then-Magistrate Judge Haw- ley. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 6 No. 24-1796

A. Exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act 1. Legal Standard The PLRA requires prisoners to properly exhaust all ad- ministrative remedies before pursuing claims in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “The exhaustion requirement’s pri- mary purpose is to alert the state to the problem and invite corrective action.” Turley, 729 F.3d at 649 (citation modified). Accordingly, when the prisoner takes all the administrative steps, his complaint will give the prison the necessary notice and the opportunity to correct a problem before being drawn into litigation. Jackson v. Esser, 105 F.4th 948, 958–59 (7th Cir. 2024). For a prisoner to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, the prisoner must “file 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). “A prisoner who does not properly take each step within the administrative process has failed to exhaust state remedies.” Id. at 1024; Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 525 (2002) (noting that the purpose of the exhaustion requirement is to give officials “time and opportunity to address complaints in- ternally”). Because exhaustion is an affirmative defense, the defend- ants shoulder the burden of proof. Hernandez v. Lee, 128 F.4th 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2025). We review de novo a grant of sum- mary judgment based on a failure to exhaust. Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 492 (7th Cir. 2008). 2. Boyce’s Grievance Provided Sufficient Notice It was defendants’ burden to prove that Boyce had not ex- hausted his administrative remedies. Dr. Catino and Cox maintain that Boyce’s September grievance was insufficient to No. 24-1796 7

support his Eighth Amendment claim of an ongoing failure to provide adequate dental care. Instead, Boyce’s federal com- plaint, according to the defendants, was limited to “factual al- legations plausibly stating a claim for relief” for conduct that occurred on September 26, 2022, approximately six days after Boyce’s September grievance form was completed. Accord- ingly, Dr. Catino and Cox maintain that Boyce has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In response, Boyce contends that the September grievance alleged ongoing violations of his right to adequate dental care and put prison officials at Western on notice of Dr. Catino and Cox’s deliberate indifference. Thus, Boyce maintains that he has fully exhausted his administrative remedies. Because of the ongoing denial of dental care, Boyce argues he did not need to file a separate grievance complaining of the Septem- ber 26, 2022 appointment. Boyce cites Turley in support of his position. See 729 F.3d at 650. In that case, we explained to sat- isfy the exhaustion requirement “prisoners need not file mul- tiple, successive grievances raising the same issue (such as prison conditions or policies) if the objectionable condition is continuing.” Id. “Separate complaints about particular inci- dents are only required if the underlying facts or the com- plaints are different.” Id. We explained that “once a prison has received notice of, and an opportunity to correct, a problem, the prisoner has satisfied the purpose of the exhaustion re- quirement.” Id. Boyce’s September 2022 grievance was centered around the lack of dental care he was receiving from the prison. The grievance stated that Boyce had been suffering from extreme tooth pain since transferring to Western in November 2021. He explained that when he was examined by Dr. Catino in 8 No. 24-1796

July 2022, he was notified of a hole in his tooth and the need for a tooth extraction. Months later, Boyce filed the grievance requesting that his tooth be filled and his teeth cleaned. In Cox’s response, she noted that Boyce had been seen on Sep- tember 26, 2022, for the tooth extraction, but requested the procedure be rescheduled because Boyce was not feeling well. Because Boyce was being rescheduled for the tooth extraction, the prison deemed Boyce’s grievance moot. Dr. Catino and Cox’s contention that Boyce was required to then file a separate grievance following his September 26, 2022 appointment fails. The prison deemed Boyce’s Septem- ber 20 grievance moot because of actions the prison took six days later. When properly construed, Boyce’s grievance fo- cused on the prison’s ongoing failure to provide him with ad- equate dental care, not Dr. Catino and Cox’s conduct at a spe- cific appointment. Clearly from the response, the prison offi- cials deemed the objectionable condition Boyce complained of in his September grievance continued beyond the dates iden- tified in the form. Boyce’s grievance was sufficient to exhaust his § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference concern- ing his extreme dental pain. Berry, 604 F.3d at 440; Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Cox at- tempts to avoid this conclusion by noting that Boyce did not mention her in his September grievance. Citing Roberts v. Neal, 745 F.3d 232 (7th Cir. 2014), Cox maintains that Boyce was re- quired to mention Cox by name to exhaust his administrative remedies against her. See id. at 234. Roberts is inapplicable. In that case, the prisoner failed to identify the prison officials by name or provide enough information in the grievance so that the grievance officer could identify the officials. See id. at 235– No. 24-1796 9

36. Here, construing the facts in Boyce’s favor, he outlined in his grievance that he had been seen by the dental staff at West- ern in July 2022 and was left with a hole in his tooth and in extreme pain. From the prison’s investigation, this conduct was attributable to Dr. Catino and Cox. Knowing she was a target of Boyce’s complaint, the grievance counselor spoke with Cox regarding Boyce’s dental treatment. Because Boyce properly utilized Western’s grievance process and offered de- scriptive information sufficient to put the prison on notice of his claims against Dr. Catino and Cox, we conclude Boyce ex- hausted his administrative remedies under the PLRA. B. Class Certification Next, Boyce seems to argue that the district court abused its discretion in denying his request for class certification. A class action can be maintained only if the class representative “will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4). Boyce proceeded without counsel in the district court, and the ability to protect the interest of the class depends on, among other things, the quality of counsel. Sec'y of Lab. v. Fitzsimmons, 805 F.2d 682, 697 (7th Cir. 1986) (en banc). Boyce does not engage with this principle on ap- peal. He has not shown that he was qualified to pursue claims of delayed dental care or has the capacity to protect the inter- ests of his fellow inmates. Howard v. Pollard, 814 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). Only experienced counsel with significant resources could provide the level of support nec- essary to prosecute such a massive suit. We therefore con- clude that the district court did not abuse its discretion deny- ing without prejudice Boyce’s motion to bring a class action at this juncture. 10 No. 24-1796

III. CONCLUSION In sum, Boyce’s September 20, 2022 grievance provided sufficient notice to prison officials of his complaint of inade- quate dental care by Dr. Catino and Cox. Thus, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that Boyce failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the PLRA. We REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.