Jackson v. Himelick et al
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTS 91 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Cathy Lee and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 2/15/2017. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(lhc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
FORT WAYNE DIVISION
RICKY LYNN JACKSON, SR.,
CAUSE NO. 1:14-CV-368
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on the motion for summary
judgment filed by Defendant Cathy Lee on August 26, 2016. For the
reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS the summary judgment
motion (DE 91) and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case.
Ricky Lynn Jackson, Sr., a pro se prisoner, is proceeding in
Commander Cathy Lee in her individual capacity for denying him
medical treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by
taking his medically prescribed extra mat on May 9, 2015, while he
was a pre-trial detainee at the Grant County Jail.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court must view
all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). A court
must avoid the temptation to “make credibility determinations,
weigh the evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the
facts; these are jobs for a factfinder.” Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d
767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment is not a substitute for
a trial on the merits or a vehicle for resolving factual disputes.
Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir. 1994).
Instead, the court’s sole task in ruling on a motion for summary
judgment is “to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether
there is any material dispute of fact that requires a trial.”
Payne, 337 F.3d at 770. If a reasonable factfinder could find in
favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment may not be granted.
The Eighth Amendment’s ban on ‘cruel and unusual
punishments’ requires prison officials to take reasonable
measures to guarantee the safety of inmates, including
the provision of adequate medical care.” Minix v.
Canarecci, 597 F.3d 824, 830 (7th Cir. 2010). We note
that some members of the class are pretrial detainees and
that “the Eighth Amendment applies only to convicted
persons.” Id. at 831. However, in this context, the
present case law holds that “pretrial detainees ... are
entitled to the same basic protections under the
Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Accordingly,
we apply the same legal standards to deliberate
indifference claims brought under either the Eighth or
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.; see also Smentek, 683 F.3d at
374. But see Kingsley v. Hendrickson, ––– U.S. ––––, 135
S.Ct. 2466, 2475, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (holding that
there are different standards for sentenced prisoners and
pretrial detainees in the case of excessive force
Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook Cty., 828 F.3d 541, 554 n. 31 (7th Cir.
authorization for an extra mat in December 2014. DE 92-2 at 2 and
DE 97 at 3. It is undisputed that medical authorization was revoked
necessary. DE 93-11 and DE 97 at 5. It is undisputed that Corporals
Marden and Pearson took Jackson’s extra mat on May 9, 2015. DE 93-2
at 2 and DE 97 at 4. As such, Jackson did not have medical
authorization for an extra mat when it was taken. Though the
parties dispute whether Defendant Lee ordered the removal of the
mat and why it was taken, those are not material to resolving this
case. Though Jackson argues that Lee knew he had a medical need for
“entitled to relegate to the prison’s medical staff the provision
of good medical care.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th
Cir. 2009). Medical staff determined that Jackson did not need an
extra mat. Therefore the undisputed facts show that Defendant Cathy
Lee did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment when the extra mat was
taken from Jackson.
For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS the summary
judgment motion (DE 91) and DIRECTS the clerk to close this case.
DATED: February 15, 2017
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
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?