Jekiel v. Correct Care Solutions et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Pro Se Complaint: Court GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed against Dr. John Foster, Nurse Robin Yohn and Nurse Jessica Whiekcar in their individual capacities and against Correct Care Solutions and DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to effect service on those parties. Court DISMISSES any and all other claims contained in the complaint. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 8/26/15. cc: USMS, Jekiel(mc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
JEREMY M. JEKIEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS,
et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-282

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is a complaint filed by Jeremy M. Jekiel, a
pro se prisoner, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(DE #1.)

For the

reasons set forth below, the Court: (1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave
to proceed against Dr. John Foster, Nurse Robin Yohn and Nurse
Jessica Whiekcar in their individual capacities for compensatory
and punitive damages for failing to provide him with adequate
medical care; (2) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed against
Correct Care Solutions for maintaining an unconstitutional policy
or practice prohibiting inmates from obtaining prompt evaluation
and treatment for serious medical needs;(3) DISMISSES any and all
other claims contained in the complaint; (4) DIRECTS the United
States Marshals Service to effect service on Dr. John Foster, Nurse
Robin Yohn, Nurse Jessica Whiekcar and Correct Care Solutions; and
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Dr. John Foster,
Nurse Robin Yohn, Nurse Jessica Whiekcar and Correct Care Solutions

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 plaintiff has
been granted leave to proceed in this screening order.

BACKGROUND
Jeremy M. Jekiel, a pro se prisoner, filed this action on July
6, 2015.

(DE # 1.)

He alleges that he has been denied proper care

for his broken hand while being held as a pretrial detainee at the
Elkhart County Correctional Complex.

DISCUSSION
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.

In determining whether the

complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same standard as
when deciding a motion to dismiss under FEDERAL RULE
12(b)(6).
2006).

OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE

Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 624 (7th Cir.

To survive dismissal, 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

2

inference

that

the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Id. at 603.

Thus, the plaintiff “must do better than putting a few words on
paper that, in the hands of an imaginative reader, might suggest
that something has happened to her that might be redressed by the
law. Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)
(emphasis in original). The Court must bear in mind, however, 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).
According to the complaint, on March 2, 2105, a fellow inmate
assaulted Jekiel and another inmate stomped on his hand.

Later

that day, he showed his black and blue hand to a nurse and asked to
be seen, but was informed that Correct Care Solutions (“CCS”)1
maintained a policy that required him to first fill out a medical
request.

Jekiel filled out the medical request, but was not seen

by any medical staff for six days.

After six days, Jekiel was seen

by Nurses Robin Yohn and Jessica Whiekcar.

He requested pain

medication, but they denied his request and said that CCS policy
required him to first been seen by Dr. Foster.
Dr. Foster then examined Jekiel, and found that his hand was
broken and referred him to an outside physician.

1

On March 31,

A private company providing health care services at Elkhart County
Correctional Complex.

3

2015, Jekiel was seen by Dr. David Cutliffe in Napanee, Indiana,
where a CT scan revealed a hand fracture.

After returning, Dr.

Foster told Jekiel that he needed to go back to Dr. Cutliffe for
further treatment, but CCS had denied that further treatment.
Jekiel claims that due tot he policy of CCS, and the actions
of Dr. Foster, Nurse Yohn and Nurse Whiekcar, he was been denied
adequate medical care and suffered pain and loss of use of his
right hand.
Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
inmates are entitled to adequate medical care for serious medical
needs.

Collignon v. Milwaukee Cnty., 163 F.3d 982, 988-990 (7th

Cir. 1998).

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.”
(7th Cir. 2008).

Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697

A mere disagreement with medical professionals

about the appropriate course of treatment does not establish
deliberate
practice.

indifference,

nor

does

negligence

or

even

medical

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

4

seriously aggravate his condition.” Id.
Here, Jekiel alleges that the nurses knew of his injured hand,
but delayed treatment for six days as a result of CCS’s policy.

He

was also denied pain medication by Nurses Yohn and Whiekcar during
that time due to CCS’s policy.

This delay is enough to allege that

the nurses were deliberately indifferent to his broken hand.
Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030, 1040 (7th Cir. 2002).

As to Dr.

Foster, he allegedly knew that Jekiel needed to be seen by an
outside physician for further treatment but, based on CCS policy,
he refused to send Jekiel for any further treatment.

This, too,

states a claim for deliberate indifference. Perez v. Fenoglio, 792
F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015). Although further factual development may
show that medical staff properly evaluated and treated Jekiel,
giving him the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage, he
has alleged enough to proceed on a Fourteenth Amendment claim.
Next, Jekiel raises an official capacity claim against CCS
based on an alleged unlawful policy at the jail regarding the
medical treatment provided to inmates. A suit against a government
officer in his official capacity is treated as a suit against the
municipality itself. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 471-72 (1985).
There is no general respondeat superior liability under Section
1983, and instead a municipality will be held liable only if the
plaintiff

establishes

a

policy

plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

5

or

custom

that

violates

the

Monell v. New York City Dep’t

of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); Schor v. City of Chicago,
576 F.3d 775, 779 (7th Cir. 2009). Here, Jekiel essentially blames
the medical defendants’ conduct on CCS policies.

He alleges that

CCS’s policies caused him to have to wait six days to be seen for
a broken hand and be denied pain medication during that time.

He

also alleges that CCS’s policy caused him to be denied further
medical

treatment

for

his

hand

even

though

it

is

medically

necessary. Similar to the underlying claims discussed above, further
factual development may show that CCS’s polices were reasonable and
appropriate.

However, Jekiel has plausibly alleged that he was

subjected to unreasonable medical care, which was the result of
CCS’s policies.

As such, he has alleged enough to proceed on a

Fourteenth Amendment official capacity claim against CCS.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court:
(1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed against Dr. John
Foster, Nurse Robin Yohn and Nurse Jessica Whiekcar in their
individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for
failing to provide him with adequate medical care;
(2) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed against Correct Care
Solutions for maintaining an unconstitutional policy or practice
prohibiting inmates from obtaining prompt evaluation and treatment
for serious medical needs;
6

(3) DISMISSES any and all other claims contained in the
complaint;
(4) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to effect
service on Dr. John Foster, Nurse Robin Yohn, Nurse Jessica
Whiekcar and Correct Care Solutions; and
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Dr. John
Foster, Nurse Robin Yohn, Nurse Jessica Whiekcar and Correct Care
Solutions 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
plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening
order.

DATED:

August 26, 2015

/s/ RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

7