Brodley v. Marandet MD
OPINION AND ORDER re 1 Pro Se Complaint; the court GRANTS Kevin Brodley leave to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Noe Marandet in his individual capacity for money damages for withholding Glipizide since October 2016; GRANTS Kev in Brodley leave to proceed on his Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Noe Marandet in his official capacity for injunctive relief requiring him to administer Glipizide to Mr. Brodley as prescribed; DISMISSES all other claims; DIRECTS the clerk and th e U S Marshals Service to issue and serve process on Dr. Noe Marandet; and ORDERS that Dr. Noe Marandet respond only to the claim for which the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 8/21/2017. (Copy mailed as directed in Order)(lpw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
NOE J. MARANDET, M.D.,
CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-539 RLM
OPINION AND ORDER
Kevin Brodley, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint alleging that a doctor at
the Miami Correctional Facility (“Miami”) is continually withholding his prescribed
diabetic medication, Glipizide1, for no legitimate reason. “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, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review
the merits of 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. “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
Glipizide is used to treat high blood sugar levels caused by a type of diabetes mellitus. U.S.
National Library of Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0010476/?report=details (last visited August 16,
of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006).
According to the complaint, Mr. Brodley, an inmate at Miami, has been
diagnosed as having diabetes and is prescribed Glipizide to treat that condition.
In September 2016, medical personnel mistakenly failed to reorder his Glipizide.
This caused Mr. Brodley to file a prison grievance and tort claim. Dr. Marandet
became upset with Mr. Brodley’s actions. As a result, Dr. Marandet has
continually upheld giving Glipizide to Mr. Brodley. As a result of not being able to
take Glipizide as prescribed, Mr. Brodley has suffered dizziness, blurred vision,
blackouts, and is now required to take insulin injections. Based on these
allegations, Mr. Brodley has brought an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr.
Marandet. Mr. Brodley seeks money damages and injunctive relief — to have his
Glipizide given to him as prescribed.
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 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 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
To be held liable for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a
medical professional 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). 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.
There is little question that, based on the complaint, Mr. Brodley suffers
from a serious medical need that requires him to take the prescription medication
Glipizide. Mr. Brodley has also alleged that his Glipizide is continuously being
withheld from him with no legitimate reason, which has caused him physical
harm. Giving him the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage, Mr.
Brodley has alleged enough to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Kevin Brodley leave to proceed on his Eighth Amendment
claim against Dr. Noe Marandet in his individual capacity for money
damages for withholding Glipizide since October 2016;
(2) GRANTS Kevin Brodley leave to proceed on his Eighth Amendment
claim against Dr. Noe Marandet in his official capacity for injunctive relief
requiring him to administer Glipizide to Mr. Brodley as prescribed;
(3) DISMISSES all other claims;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to issue and serve process on Dr. Noe
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Dr. Noe
Marandet 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.
ENTERED: August 21 , 2017.
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
United States District Court
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?