Johnson v. Mitcheff et al

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER granting plaintiff leave to proceed against Dr Michael Mitcheff in his individual capacity for monetary damages and in his official capacity for injunctive relief for denying him proper medical care in violation of the 8th Amendment; dismisses any and all other claims; directs USM to effect service. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 5/13/13. (smp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

MICHAEL MITCHEFF,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:13-CV-223 RM

OPINION AND ORDER
James Edward Johnson, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (DE 7.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the complaint and
dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Courts apply the same standard
under Section 1915A as when deciding a motion under FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
12(b)(6). Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir. 2006). To survive this review,
a complaint must state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bissessur v. Indiana
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. 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).

Mr. Johnson alleges that Dr. Michael Mitcheff, regional medical director for the
Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”), denied him adequate medical care. According
to the complaint, Mr. Johnson was seen at an outside hospital in March 2011 for a broken
jaw that wasn’t healing properly. He alleges that he was referred to a neurologist, but
claims Dr. Mitcheff has refused to approve the referral or other proper treatment. He claims
that his jaw still hasn’t healed correctly. He further alleges that in May 2011, x-rays
revealed that he has degenerative disc disease and other spine problems. He claims that
he was referred for further evaluation and treatment, but none were provided, even though
he continues to experience pain from these conditions. Finally, he claims that in April 2012,
he was diagnosed with abdominal and lower back problems after he had blood in his urine.
He claims that further evaluation and treatment was recommended, but “nothing was done
as a result of these diagnoses.” Mr. Johnson alleges that Dr. Mitcheff, as the final decisionmaker regarding inmate medical care, “automatically denie[d] anything that was costly.”
He claims the doctor has failed to provide him with adequate treatment for his medical
problems and failed to provide him with proper medication to control his pain due to these
conditions.
To establish liability for the denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment,
a prisoner must show: (1) he had an objectively serious medical need; and (2) an official
acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. 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
2

need for a doctor’s attention.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Conduct
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 quotation marks omitted). For a medical professional to be held liable for
deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs, 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).
Mr. Johnson alleges that he has medical conditions that have been diagnosed by
doctors, and that he suffers ongoing pain as a result of these conditions. Giving Mr.
Johnson the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage, he has alleged a serious medical
need. On the second prong, he alleges that Dr. Mitcheff has refused to approve further
treatment for these conditions despite the recommendations of medical professionals, and
has refused to provide medication to alleviate his pain. Taking these allegations as true, he
has alleged a plausible deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Mitcheff.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on a claim against Dr. Michael
Mitcheff in his individual capacity for monetary damages, and in his official

3

capacity for injunctive relief, for denying him proper medical care in violation of the
Eighth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES any and all other claims contained in the complaint;
(3) DIRECTS the U.S. Marshals Service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to
effect service of process on Dr. Michael Mitcheff; and
(4) ORDERS Dr. Michael Mitcheff to respond, as provided for in the FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and N.D. IND. L.R. 10.1, only to the claim for which the
pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: May 13 , 2013
Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

4