Peacher v. Payne et al

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER: GRANTS Plaintiff Robert L. Peacher leave to proceed against George Payne and Mark Sevier in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him adequate food and medical care in violation of the Ei ghth Amendment; GRANTS him leave to proceed against George Payne and Mark Sevier in their official capacities for injunctive relief to obtain adequate food and medical care; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 forms for George Payne and Mark Sevier to the US Marshals Service along with a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 1 ), the motion (ECF No. 5 ), and this Order; DIRECTS the US Marshals Service, pursuant to 28:1915(d), to effect PERSONAL SERVI CE on George Payne and Mark Sevier by 11/4/2016; ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that George Payne and Mark Sevier respond, as provided for in the Fed. R. Civ. P. and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the Plainti ff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order; and GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 5 ) MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by R Peacher, only to the extent that George Payne and Mark Sevier are ORDERED to file and serve the two affidavits (or declarations) described in this Order by 11/17/2016. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 10/27/2016. (lhc)(cc: Plaintiff and USMS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROBERT L. PEACHER,
Plaintiff,
v.
GEORGE PAYNE and MARK SEVIER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:16-CV-701-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
Robert L. Peacher, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint alleging that he has
been psychologically unable to eat the food served to him by prison officials since June 23, 2016,
when he was transferred to the Westville Correctional Facility. He alleges that he can only eat
food that is served in a factory sealed container because he is afraid that guards might have
poisoned food prepared in the prison. He alleges that he is not receiving mental health treatment
for this disorder and is starving. He states that all he has eaten for the past five months are the
powdered milk packets served with some meals and commissary food he has acquired from other
inmates. He denies that he is on a hunger strike or that he is voluntarily starving himself in an
attempt to manipulate officials to transfer him to a different prison. He alleges that because of his
mental illness, he is sincerely unable to eat the food they are providing. He is seeking both
monetary damages and injunctive relief.
“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). Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, this 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. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 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).
The Eighth Amendment requires that prison officials ensure that inmates receive
adequate food, clothing, and shelter. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). Because the
Complaint alleges that the Defendants know that he is sincerely unable to eat because of his
mental illness, it states a claim. The Complaint also states a claim for a denial of medical
treatment because it alleges that the Defendants have actual knowledge that his mental illness
prevents him from eating and that he is not receiving psychiatric treatment. See Gutierrez v.
Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1369 (7th Cir. 1997) (In medical cases, the Eighth Amendment is violated
when a defendant is deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious medical needs.) “[C]onduct 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) (quotation
marks, brackets, and citation omitted). However, “[a] layperson’s failure to tell the medical staff
how to do its job cannot be called deliberate indifference.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596
(7th Cir. 2009). “If a prisoner is under the care of medical experts a non-medical prison official
will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands.” Greeno v. Daley ,
414 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 2005) (ellipsis omitted) (quoting Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236
(3rd Cir. 2004)).
In addition to monetary damages for past Constitutional violations, Peacher is also asking
for a permanent injunction preventing him from being housed in the Westville Correctional

2

Facility or any other prison where guards control or serve food. He wants to be transferred to the
Mental Health Unit at either the New Castle or Pendleton Correctional Facilities.
The PLRA circumscribes the scope of the court’s authority to enter an injunction
in the corrections context. Where prison conditions are found to violate federal
rights, remedial injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than
necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and use the least intrusive
means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. This section of the
PLRA enforces a point repeatedly made by the Supreme Court in cases challenging
prison conditions: Prison officials have broad administrative and discretionary
authority over the institutions they manage.
Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012) (quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
Moreover, prisoners are “not entitled to demand specific care[, nor are they] entitled to the best
care possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). The specific requests made
by Preacher go well beyond what the PLRA permits. Nevertheless, he may be able to
demonstrate that he is entitled to a narrowly tailored injunction limited to requiring that he
receive food and medical care as required by the Eighth Amendment.
Finally, Peacher asks that the court enter an emergency injunction. “[A] preliminary
injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the
movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S.
968, 972 (1997). To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must demonstrate that
he or she has a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, lacks an adequate remedy at law,
and will suffer irreparable harm if immediate relief is not granted. Girl Scouts of Manitou
Council, Inc. v. Girl Scouts of U.S., Inc., 549 F.3d 1079, 1086 (7th Cir. 2008). Obtaining a
temporary restraining order without prior notice to the adverse party requires the movant to
satisfy an even higher standard, by showing “that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or
damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A).

3

Peacher alleges that he has not eaten the prison’s food for the last five months. It is
impossible to survive that long without eating. He is clearly eating enough to survive. Almost
none of the exhibits he has attached shed light on what has happened since he arrived at the
Westville Correctional Facility – many questions remain. Therefore injunctive relief will be
narrowly tailored to require the Defendants to promptly provide additional information. The
Court needs to know what medical treatment Peacher has received since June 23, 2016. This
information needs to be provided as a narrative summary in an affidavit (or declaration). The
Court does not need medical records at this time. The summary needs to include specific
information about each diagnosis that was made, treatment prescribed, and treatment delivered.
It needs to include a table showing how his weight or other pertinent vital signs have changed
since June 23, 2016, if this information is available. The Court also needs to know about
Peacher’s current physical and mental condition. Peacher needs to be examined by a psychiatrist
in response to this Order. The psychiatrist needs to prepare a separate affidavit (or declaration)
describing the examination and evaluating Peacher’s physical and mental health. The psychiatrist
is directed to provide an opinion as to whether Peacher is on a voluntary hunger strike intended
to manipulate prison officials or whether he suffers from a mental illness which prevents him
from eating the prison food. Either way, the psychiatrist needs to recommend a course of
treatment. Additionally, these affiants (or declarants) may include any additional, relevant
information necessary for the Court to consider.
For these reasons, the Court:
(1) GRANTS Robert L. Peacher leave to proceed against George Payne and Mark Sevier
in their individual capacities for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him adequate
food and medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

4

(2) GRANTS Robert L. Peacher leave to proceed against George Payne and Mark Sevier
in their official capacities for injunctive relief to obtain adequate food and medical care;
(3) DISMISSES all other claims;
(4) DIRECTS the Clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 forms for George Payne
and Mark Sevier to the United States Marshals Service along with a copy of the complaint (ECF
No. 1), the motion (ECF No. 5), and this Order;
(5) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to
effect PERSONAL SERVICE on George Payne and Mark Sevier by November 4, 2016;
(6) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that George Payne and Mark Sevier
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; and
(7) GRANTS the Motion (ECF No. 5) only to the extent that George Payne and Mark
Sevier are ORDERED to file and serve the two affidavits (or declarations) described in this Order
by November 17, 2016.
SO ORDERED on October 27, 2016.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION

5