Vierling v. Troyer et al
Filing
6
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT filed by Plaintiff Allan S Vierling. Plaintiff GRANTED leave to proceed against Defendant Tim Troyer as outlined in Order. Defendant Captain Cisco Ortiz is DISMISSED. US Marshal's Service DIRECTED to eff ect service of process on Defendant Tim Troyer. Defendant Tim Troyer ORDERED to appear and respond to discovery as outlined in Order. Defendant Tim Troyer's obligation to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint is WAIVED. Clerk DIRECTED to place this cause number on a blank 42 USC §1983 Prisoner Complaint form and forward it to Plaintiff along with a copy of this Order. Any discovery by Plaintiff as outlined in Order is ORDERED to be initiated by 2/17/2012. Plaintiff ORDERED to file an Amended Complaint by 4/13/2012. Plaintiff CAUTIONED if he does not file an Amended Complaint by the deadline this case will be dismissed without further notice. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/13/11. (cer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
ALLAN S. VIERLING,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIM TROYER, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO.: 1:11-CV-402-TLS
OPINION AND ORDER
Allan S. Vierling, a prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a Prisoner Complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 [ECF No. 1]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court must review a prisoner
complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). Courts apply the same standard under Section 1915A as when
deciding a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Lagerstrom v. Kingston,
463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive dismissal, a complaint must state a claim for relief
that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Ind. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602–03 (7th Cir.
2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. at 603. In determining whether the complaint states a claim, the Court must bear in mind that
“[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed . . . and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted).
Vierling, a pretrial detainee at the Steuben County Jail, first claims that he was denied
“unrestricted confidential access to the courts.” (Compl. 3.) Specifically, he claims that on
November 8, 2011, he submitted a written request to go to the law library, and was told by the
Jail Commander, Captain Cisco Ortiz, that the law library was only available “to inmates
representing themselves in Steuben Co. cases.” (Id.) Vierling states that he wanted to do research
in connection with a “pending case in Branch Co. MI” and “to research U.S.C. 1983 complaint
for the numerous and ongoing civil rights violations that have been occurring to me for over 10
months in the Steuben Co. Jail.” (Id.)
Although inmates have a First Amendment right of access to the courts, there is no
“abstract free-standing right to a law library or legal assistance.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343,
351 (1996). In other words, “the mere denial of access to a prison law library or to other legal
materials is not itself a violation of a prisoner’s rights; his right is to access the courts, and only
if the defendants’ conduct prejudices a potentially meritorious challenge to the prisoner’s
conviction, sentence, or conditions of confinement has this right been infringed.” Marshall v.
Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir. 2006). Thus, to state a claim an inmate must “spell out” the
connection between the denial of access to legal materials and the resulting prejudice to a
potentially meritorious challenge to his conviction, sentence, or the conditions under which he is
being housed. Id.
Here, Vierling does not describe the nature of the case pending in Michigan for the Court
to determine whether it involved a potentially meritorious challenge to his conviction, sentence,
or prison conditions, nor does he describe any manner in which he was prejudiced in connection
2
with that case. As for his research in connection with alleged constitutional violations occurring
at the jail, Vierling is presently pursuing this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and he has not
otherwise described the loss of a potentially meritorious cause of action or other prejudice that
resulted from Captain Ortiz’s refusal to let him to go the law library. See Antonelli v. Sheahan,
81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996) (prisoner’s invocation of judicial process through present
lawsuit “indicates that the prison has not infringed his First Amendment right to petition the
government for redress of grievances”). Accordingly, Vierling’s access-to-the-courts claim will
be dismissed.
Vierling next claims that he has been denied adequate medical care. Specifically, he
claims that around the first week of February 2011 he noticed “a growth on my neck and a
growth on my left thumb.” (Compl. 3.) He filled out a request for medical care, and according to
the complaint, “a visit to unknown doctor #1, in the Steuben Co. Jail, was arranged.” (Id.)
Instead of examining him, however, Vierling claims the doctor “simply looked at me, he didn’t
touch me, he didn’t ask any questions, he said ‘Yep you got a bump’ and ‘Ok that’s it I’m
done.’” (Id.) He states that this doctor “made no diagnosis nor issued any treatment for the
growths.” (Id.) In March 2011, he filled out another request for medical care. He claims that by
this time the growth on his neck was causing headaches, earaches, neck aches, and sleepiness.
(Id.) In response to his request, he was seen again by the same doctor, who reportedly told him,
“I do not have to do anything for you.” (Id. at 4.)
Vierling continued to be bothered by the growths, and after requesting medical care a
third time he was seen by a second unnamed doctor at the jail in early November 2011. The
doctor reportedly told him, “I don’t know what you got going on on your neck,” and “I don’t
3
know what you have in your thumb.” (Id.) He states that the doctor did not give him a
“conclusive diagnosis,” and the Complaint can be read to allege that this doctor did not prescribe
any form of treatment. (Id.) He asserts that the growth on his neck is still giving him cause for
concern, as it is increasing in size and he believes it is causing headaches, neck aches, dizziness,
and occasional blurred vision.
Because Vierling is a pretrial detainee, the Fourteenth rather than the Eighth Amendment
applies. Lewis v. Downey, 581 F.3d 467, 473–74 (7th Cir. 2009). However, the standards that
apply are functionally equivalent, and “anything that would violate the Eighth Amendment
would also violate the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 475. Under either Amendment, inmates
are entitled to adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish
liability the prisoner must show: (1) he or she had an objectively serious medical need; and (2)
the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
834 (1994). A medical need is “serious” if it is one that “a physician has diagnosed as mandating
treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would perceive the need for a doctor’s
attention.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate indifference is a high
standard, and is “something approaching a total unconcern for a prisoner’s welfare in the face of
serious risks,” or a “conscious, culpable refusal” to prevent harm. Duane v. Lane, 959 F.2d 673,
677 (7th Cir. 1992). As the Seventh Circuit has explained:
[C]onduct is deliberately indifferent when the official has acted in an intentional
or criminally reckless manner, i.e., the defendant must have known that the
plaintiff was at serious risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to
prevent that harm from occurring even though he could have easily done so.
Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d 469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citations omitted). For a medical
professional to be held liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs, he or she
4
must make a decision that represents “such a substantial departure from accepted professional
judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not
base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008).
As recounted above, Vierling alleges that he has growths on his neck and thumb, and that
the growth on his neck is causing headaches and blurred vision, among other symptoms. He
alleges that he was seen by two different jail doctors, neither of whom provided him with any
form of treatment, despite the fact that his condition is worsening. Giving Vierling the inferences
to which is he entitled at this stage, he has alleged a deliberate indifference claim against the two
unnamed jail doctors.
Vierling additionally names as defendants Captain Ortiz and Sheriff Tim Troyer, but he
has not stated a claim against them for the denial of medical care. He claims they had notice of
his medical concerns because of grievances he filed, but as non-medical staff members they
cannot be sued merely for denying his grievances. Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th
Cir. 2009). Nor can they be held liable solely by virtue of the fact that they oversee operations at
the jail. Id. at 594. Furthermore, the Complaint makes clear that Vierling was seen by medical
personnel on three occasions in response to his requests for medical care, and these non-medical
prison staff members were entitled to defer to the judgment of these doctors. Berry v. Peterman,
604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010); Burks, 555 F.3d at 595. Although Vierling alleges that he did
not receive proper treatment from the doctors, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Captain Ortiz and Sheriff
Troyer can only be held liable “for their own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks, 555
F.3d at 595. Accordingly, Vierling will not be permitted to proceed on claims for the denial of
medical care against these Defendants.
5
As a final matter, as indicated above Vierling apparently does not know the identity of
the two jail doctors who examined him as he identifies them only as “Unknown Doctor #1” and
“Unknown Doctor #2.” (Compl. 2.) As a practical matter his case cannot proceed against two
unnamed defendants. See Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is
pointless to include lists of anonymous defendants in federal court; this type of placeholder does
not open the door to relation back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, nor can it otherwise help the
plaintiff.”). Thus, the Court will order that service be made on the Sheriff for the sole purpose of
identifying the two medical defendants through discovery. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d
1422, 1428 (7th Cir. 1996). The Court will set deadlines for Vierling to conduct discovery and to
file an amended complaint containing the names of the two doctors, which he must do for this
case to proceed. If Vierling can obtain the names of the medical defendants on his own without
having to conduct discovery, he may of course do so. However, in either case, if he fails to
submit an amended complaint containing their names by the deadline, this action will be
dismissed for failure to state a claim against a viable defendant.
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) GRANTS the Plaintiff leave to proceed against Tim Troyer for the sole purpose of
conducting discovery to identify the two unknown medical defendants who examined him
between February and November 2011 for growths on his neck and thumb;
(2) DISMISSES Captain Cisco Ortiz;
(3) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process on Tim
Troyer;
6
(4) ORDERS Tim Troyer to appear and respond to discovery for the sole purpose of
identifying the two unknown medical defendants;
(5) WAIVES Tim Troyer’s obligation to file an answer to the Complaint;
(6) DIRECTS the Clerk to place this cause number on a blank 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner
Complaint form and mail it to the Plaintiff along with a copy of this Order;
(7) ORDERS that any discovery by the Plaintiff regarding the identity of the unnamed
medical defendants be initiated by February 17, 2012;
(8) ORDERS the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before April 13, 2012,
which names the two medical defendants who denied him proper treatment for the growths on
his neck and thumb, and presents any and all claims that he is asserting against them; and
(9) CAUTIONS him that if he does not file an amended complaint by the deadline, this
case will be dismissed without further notice.
SO ORDERED on December 13, 2011.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?