Beard v. Global Polymers LLC et al
Filing
8
OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTING pltf leave to proceed on 8th Amendment Claim against Nurse Cody for denying adequate medical care; GRANTING pltf leave to proceed on 8th Amendment claim against Nurse Cartello for denying adequate medical care; GRANTING pltf leave to proceed on 8th Amendment claim against Sgt Stall fro taking Beard's id badge; GRANTING pltf leave to proceed on 8th Amendment claim against Officer Moody for not allowing Beard to attend a medical check-up; DISMISSING all other claims contained in the complaint; DIRECTING USM to effect service of process on defendants; ORDERING Nurse Cody, Nurse Cartello, Sgt Stall and Officer Moody to answer the complaint. Signed by Chief Judge Philip P Simon on 11/24/14. (jld)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RAYMOND BEARD,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GLOBAL POLYMERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1779 PS
OPINION AND ORDER
Raymond Beard, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint (DE 4) under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was injured as a result of working in hazardous conditions at the
Westville Correctional Facility and that he was denied proper medical care for his injuries.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the 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). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain enough to state a claim for relief that
is plausible on its face and to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. 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.
Nevertheless, I 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
-1-
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). “In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that
defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted
under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
Beard is an inmate at Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”). As an inmate he
worked for Global Polymers. Beard complained to his Global supervisors, Rob Wright and
John Graff, about water leaking from the ceiling onto the ground, making his work area
slippery, but Wright and Graff refused to consider the condition to be an unsafe
environment. On December 12, 2012, Beard slipped and fell while walking to his work
station, hitting his head on the concrete floor.
A violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause
consists of two elements: (1) objectively, whether the injury is sufficiently serious to deprive
the prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, and (2) subjectively,
whether the prison official’s actual state of mind was one of “deliberate indifference” to the
deprivation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Here, Beard’s slip and fall claim
does not satisfy the objective prong of this test.
“[N]ot every deviation from ideally safe conditions constitutes a violation of the
constitution. The Eighth amendment does not constitutionalize the Indiana Fire Code. Nor
does it require complete compliance with the numerous OSHA regulations.” French v.
Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
“Conditions of confinement must be severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim; the
-2-
prison officials’ act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure
of life’s necessities.” Morissette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks
and citations omitted). “An objectively sufficiently serious risk, is one that society considers
so grave that to expose any unwilling individual to it would offend contemporary
standards of decency.” Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). However, as the Tenth Circuit has explained, “while the
standing-water problem was a potentially hazardous condition, slippery floors constitute
a daily risk faced by members of the public at large. Federal courts from other circuits have
therefore consistently held that slippery prison floors do not violate the Eighth
Amendment.” Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1031 (10th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases).
Beard also claims to have been denied adequate medical treatment for the injuries
he sustained as a result of the fall. 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). For a medical professional to be held liable for deliberate indifference, 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
-3-
responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541
F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008).
When Beard arrived at the medical room after the fall, Nurse Cody performed an
X-ray and Doctor Krembs ordered a pain shot and a wheelchair for Beard’s back pain.
Apparently, Nurse Cody did not give Beard the pain shot or a wheelchair. Instead, Beard
was given only aspirin for his headache. Beard was then forced to walk one-quarter mile
back to his dorm. Beard asserts that he should have been given a medical accommodation
so that he did not have to walk, since walking caused him extreme pain. Giving Beard the
benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this proceeding, he
has plausibly alleged that Nurse Cody was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs when she denied him the prescribed pain medication and wheelchair, thus requiring
him to walk back to his dorm after leaving the medical room.
While recovering from his injuries, Beard made approximately forty (40) health care
requests stating that he was in pain and could not walk to the cafeteria, and asked to either
have his food brought to him or be permitted to stay in the infirmary. However, Nurse
Cartello refused Beard’s requests. As a result, Beard was required to walk to the cafeteria
to eat, which caused him excruciating pain and also caused him to miss meals. Giving
Beard the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this
proceeding, he has plausibly alleged that Nurse Cartello was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs when she refused to address his health care request forms.
Immediately following Beard’s fall, Sergeant Stall took Beard’s identification tag
-4-
while the nurses took Beard’s vital signs. The tag was never returned. When Beard asked
what happened to the tag, Sergeant Stall told Beard he would have to purchase a new one.
Because the tag had Beard’s personal and medical information on it, not having the tag
caused Beard to be denied insulin and certain meals for approximately two to three weeks.
Also, Beard was denied a medical check-up when Officer Moody, who knew about
Beard not having his identification, nevertheless refused to allow Beard to go to his medical
appointment without it. Prison officials do have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to
ensure inmates receive adequate food and medical care. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. Giving
Beard the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this
proceeding, he has plausibly alleged that Officer Moody was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical need by not allowing Beard to go to his medical check-up and Sergeant
Stall was deliberately indifferent to Beard’s deprivations caused by taking his identification
badge.
Beard also claims his employer, Global, retaliated against him for getting injured,
by issuing him conduct reports and ultimately transferring him to another section of the
facility. Beard’s claims of retaliation could rise to a constitutional claim if the retaliation
was for Beard exercising a constitutional right. Perotti v. Quinones, 488 Fed. Appx. 141, 146
(7th Cir. 2012)(citing Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 625 (7th Cir. 2006)). However,
there is no constitutional right to work in prison. Armstrong v. Lane, 771 F.Supp. 943, 950
(C.D. Ill. 1991)(citing Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1150 (1983)). Thus, even though it is highly questionable and unprofessional for Global’s
-5-
supervisors to retaliate against him by issuing conduct reports and transferring him, that
does not amount to a constitutional violation.
Finally, Beard claims to have filed numerous grievances with Timothy Bean, but
complains that Bean has not processed them properly. Although Beard does not detail this
in his complaint, it is of no consequence. Prison grievance procedures “do not give rise to
a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763,
772 (7th Cir. 2008). As a result, Beard’s complaints about the grievance process do not state
a constitutional claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against
Nurse Cody for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him adequate medical
care by withholding the prescribed pain medication and wheelchair;
(2) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against
Nurse Cartello for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him adequate medical
care by refusing to acknowledge Beard’s health care request forms regarding his ability to
walk;
(3) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against
Sergeant Stall for compensatory and punitive damages for taking Beard’s identification
badge knowing that it would result in Beard being deprived medical care and food;
(4) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against
Officer Moody for compensatory and punitive damages for not allowing Beard to attend
-6-
a medical check-up;
(5) DISMISSES any and all other claims contained in the complaint;
(6) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285's for Nurse Cody,
Nurse Cartello, Sergeant Stall and Officer Moody to the United States Marshals Service
along with a copy of this order and a copy of the amended complaint (DE 4);
(7) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process on
Nurse Cody, Nurse Cartello, Sergeant Stall and Officer Moody; and
(8) ORDERS that Nurse Cody, Nurse Cartello, Sergeant Stall and Officer Moody
respond, as provided for in the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and N.D. IND. L.R. 10-1,
only to the claims for which the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this
screening order.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: November 24, 2014.
s/Philip P. Simon
Chief Judge
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?