Stewart, an inmate at New Castle Correctional Facility, filed suit in June 2025 alleging that Dr. Nwannunu violated his constitutional rights by telling him that his chemotherapy was working without checking his lungs or reviewing his medical records. The case involves Stewart's claim that the prison physician provided inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In his motion for summary judgment, Dr. Nwannunu argues that Stewart's case must be dismissed because he did not complete the required grievance process before filing suit. The defendant contends that 'there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him' and that he is therefore 'entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.'
The motion reveals that Stewart's own grievance records demonstrate he 'did not complete the entirety of the grievance procedure for this claim.' Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, inmates must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights lawsuits, a requirement that courts have consistently enforced as a jurisdictional prerequisite.
The case has already survived initial screening by the court. In October 2025, U.S. District Judge Jane R. Seigel granted Stewart leave to proceed with his constitutional claims under the Eighth Amendment against Dr. Nwannunu after finding his complaint stated a plausible claim for relief.
Dr. Nwannunu raised the exhaustion defense in his answer to the complaint, setting up the current procedural battle. The defense team argues that regardless of the merits of Stewart's medical care claims, the case cannot proceed because he failed to follow proper administrative channels first.
If the court denies the summary judgment motion, Dr. Nwannunu has requested a hearing under Pavey v. Conley, a 7th Circuit precedent that allows courts to conduct factual hearings on exhaustion issues. This procedural option would give the court an opportunity to resolve any disputed facts about whether Stewart properly completed the grievance process.
The case highlights the continuing significance of administrative exhaustion requirements in prisoner civil rights litigation. Courts have increasingly scrutinized whether inmates have fully complied with prison grievance procedures, often dismissing otherwise meritorious claims on procedural grounds.