Lohnes v. Buncich et al

Filing 19

OPINION AND ORDER re 17 the court: GRANTS James Andrew Lohnes leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for money damages against Nurse Practitioner Michelle and Nurse Practitioner Cathy, in their individual capacities for denying Lohnes trea tment for his Hepatitis C since June 2017; GRANTS James Andrew Lohnes leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief against Nurse Practitioner Michelle and Nurse Practitioner Cathy, in their individual capacities in connection w ith treating his Hepatitis C; DISMISSES all other claims; DISMISSES Sheriff John Buncich, Health Care Unit Administrator, Deputy Warden Gore and Administrator Davies; DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshal Service to issue and serve process on Nurse Practitioner Michelle and Nurse Practitioner Cathy, with a copy of this order and the amended complaint; ORDERS that Nurse Practitioner Michele and Nurse Practitioner Cathy, respond only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/28/2017. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(lpw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
JAMES ANDREW LOHNES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHERIFF BUNCICH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 2:17-CV-259

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the amended complaint filed
by James Andrew Lohnes, a pro se prisoner, on October 10, 2017. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS James Andrew
Lohnes leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for money
damages against Nurse Practitioner Michelle and Nurse Practitioner
Cathy, in their individual capacities for denying Lohnes treatment
for his Hepatitis C since June 2017; (2) GRANTS James Andrew Lohnes
leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for injunctive relief
against Nurse Practitioner Michelle and

Nurse Practitioner Cathy,

in their individual capacities in connection with treating his
Hepatitis C; (3) DISMISSES all other claims; (4) DISMISSES Sheriff
John Buncich, Health Care Unit Administrator, Deputy Warden Gore
and Administrator Davies; (5) DIRECTS the clerk and the United
States Marshals

Service

to

issue

and serve

process

on Nurse

Practitioner Michelle and Nurse Practitioner Cathy, with a copy of

this order and the amended complaint (ECF 17) as required by 28
U.S.C.

§

1915(d);

1997e(g)(2),

that

and

(5)

Nurse

ORDERS,

pursuant

Practitioner

to

Michelle

42

U.S.C.

and

§

Nurse

Practitioner Cathy, respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims
for which the plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.

DISCUSSION
Lohnes is suing six defendants in connection with his not
being treated for Hepatitis C while he was housed at the Lake
County Jail. “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) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A,
the court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint.
Lohnes alleges that he has been diagnosed with, and suffers
from, Hepatitis C. Without treatment, this condition is painful and
agonizing.

In

June

2017,

Lohnes

met

with

Nurse

Practitioner

Michelle about his Hepatitis C. He complained about pain in the
right side of his body, chronic fatigue and gastrointestinal
reflux, all resulting from his condition. However, she refused to
treat him. In August 2017, Lohnes met with Nurse Practitioner Cathy
explaining that he was suffering from the effects of Hepatitis C.

He complained of chronic fatigue, that he was unable to sleep on
his right side, and that his torso felt like it was “on fire.” ECF
17 at 6. In response, she told him, “I’m sorry but we don’t treat
Hep C.” Id.

He seeks money damages and injunctive relief - to be

medically treated for his Hepatitis C.
Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to adequate
medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To
establish liability, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and
subjective

component

by

showing:

(1)

his

medical

need

was

objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate
indifference to that medical need. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. 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 easily recognize the necessity for a
doctor’s attention. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir.
2005). Deliberate indifference means that the defendant “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 citation
omitted).
For a medical professional to be held liable for deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need, he or she 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). A mere disagreement with medical professionals
about the appropriate course of treatment does not establish
deliberate

indifference,

nor

does

negligence

or

even

medical

practice. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). An
inmate who has received some form of treatment for a medical
condition

must

show

that

the

treatment

was

“so

blatantly

inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely to
seriously aggravate his condition.” Id.
Here, Lohnes alleges that both nurse practitioners knew of his
Hepatitis C condition and also knew of the pain it was causing him,
but nevertheless refused to treat him. This states a claim for
deliberate indifference. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.
2015). Although further factual development may show that Michelle
and Cathy were justified in not treating Lohnes, giving him the
inferences to which he is entitled at this stage, he has alleged
enough to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against them.
Lohnes is also suing Sheriff Buncich and Deputy Warden Gore
because they oversee operations at the jail. As a threshold matter,
because there is no general respondeat superior liability under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, neither Sheriff Buncich nor Deputy Warden Gore can
be held liable simply because they oversee operations at the jail
or supervise other correctional officers.

Burks v. Raemisch, 555

F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, they will be dismissed
as defendants.
Finally, Lohnes names the “Health Care Unit Administrator.”
However, Lohnes does not identify that person by name. “Health Care
Unit

Administrator”

does

not

seem

to

be

a

specific

enough

description to identify the proper defendant. Instead, it is more
akin

to

“John

Doe.”

This

type

of

unnamed

defendant

must

be

dismissed because “it 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.” Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060
(7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). If at some point in the future
Lohnes can identify and name or identify this defendant by some
other means, then he can attempt to amend his complaint at that
time. For now, retaining “Health Care Unit Administrator” as a
defendant serves no purpose and this defendant will be dismissed.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court: (1) GRANTS James
Andrew Lohnes leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim for
money

damages

against

Nurse

Practitioner

Michelle

and

Nurse

Practitioner Cathy, in their individual capacities for denying
Lohnes treatment for his Hepatitis C since June 2017; (2) GRANTS
James Andrew Lohnes leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim
for injunctive relief against Nurse Practitioner Michelle and

Nurse

Practitioner

Cathy,

in

their

individual

capacities

in

connection with treating his Hepatitis C; (3) DISMISSES all other
claims; (4) DISMISSES Sheriff John Buncich, Health Care Unit
Administrator, Deputy Warden Gore and Administrator Davies; (5)
DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to issue
and

serve

process

on

Nurse

Practitioner

Michelle

and

Nurse

Practitioner Cathy, with a copy of this order and the amended
complaint (ECF 17) as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); and (5)
ORDERS,

pursuant

to

42

U.S.C.

§

1997e(g)(2),

that

Nurse

Practitioner Michelle and Nurse Practitioner Cathy, respond, as
provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind.
L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in this screening order.

DATED: November 28, 2017

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court