Davis v. Corizon Health Care et al

Filing 67

OPINION AND ORDER: The court GRANTS the defendants' motion for summary judgment 64 , and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Eddie Taylor, Dr. Barbara Eichman, and Michelle Boren, and close this case. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 9/21/2020. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(bas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
SONNY DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-729-RLM-MGG

TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Sonny M. Davis, a prisoner without a lawyer, was granted leave to proceed
on a claim against Eddie Taylor, Dr. Barbara Eichman, and Michelle Boren1 for
denying him mental health treatment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He
was also granted leave to proceed against these defendants on an injunctive relief
claim to obtain mental health treatment, as required by the Eighth Amendment.
The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. Mr. Davis received a
notice, as required by N.D. Ind. L.R. 56-1(f), notifying him of the consequences
of failing to respond to the defendants’ motion. Mr. Davis did not file a response.
The summary judgment motion is now ripe for decision.

I.

FACTS

Mr. Davis has been incarcerated since 2006. He was housed at Pendleton
Correctional Facility until April 2015, when he was transferred to Westville

1

Michelle Boren’s last name is spelled as Bourn in Mr. Davis’s amended complaint.

Correctional Facility. He has been in segregation the majority of the time he has
been incarcerated.
The events relevant to this case took place between April 15, 2015 and
December 2017. This opinion recounts them in the order in which they
happened.
April 2015. Several days before his transfer to Westville, Mr. Davis was
evaluated by Dr. Roger Perry at Pendleton to assess his behavioral and mental
health following a suicide threat. Dr. Perry’s evaluation indicated that Mr. Davis
suffered from antisocial personality disorder (“ASPD”)2 and had a history of
threatening self-harm if his demands weren’t met. He also had a history of
possible

depressive

symptoms,

but

his

Prozac

prescription

had

been

discontinued because he refused to take the medication. Dr. Perry noted that
Mr. Davis was alert, well-oriented, calm, cooperative, appropriately social, and
had not reported any depressive symptoms. Mr. Davis denied any suicidal
ideation or intent and he was working on developing coping skills to manage his
explosive aggressive outbursts. Mr. Davis had recently received a conduct report
for altering his television to use as a cell phone charger. Dr. Perry released Mr.
Davis from suicide watch.

ASPD is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and
wrong and also ignores the rights and feelings of others. Individuals who suffer from ASPD tend to
antagonize, manipulate, or treat others more harshly, and may be aggressive or violent. They typically
show no guilt or remorse for their behavior, often violate the law, and fail to sustain consistent work. These
individuals may also lack restraint, lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and
alcohol use. There is no medication that specifically treats ASPD, but medications for symptoms associated
with ASPD, including anxiety and depression, may be prescribed. Psychotherapy can be used for ASPD
symptoms and typically involves anger and violence management.
2

2

At Westville, Mr. Davis received a medical clearance for segregated
housing. Mr. Davis’s medical records from Pendleton indicated he had been
diagnosed with chronic ASPD and had a history of refusing medical treatment
and medication, trying to direct his own care, and disagreeing with medical
professionals on his care. His records also showed that he was manipulative,
demanding, concealed and trafficked medication, threatened staff, and received
a number of conduct reports. The records documented that Mr. Davis’s
prescribed medications were discontinued on December 31, 2014, because he
was noncompliant in taking them.
August 2015. Charles Dalrymple, a mental health professional, evaluated
Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis asked for mental health medication and threatened to harm
himself if he didn’t get the medication. Mr. Davis’s noncompliance with taking
medications and his drug-trafficking charges at Pendleton were discussed. Mr.
Davis said that, in his opinion, his medications were discontinued because he
had personal conflicts with Pendleton’s administration. Mr. Dalrymple noted that
Mr. Davis’s explanation was consistent with his diagnosis of ASPD.
September 2015. Dr. Barbara Eichman, a psychiatrist evaluated Mr.
Davis. He expressed no suicidal ideation, nor did he exhibit signs that he
intended to harm himself. Mr. Davis’s appearance, behavior, affect, mood, and
attitude were appropriate and normal. He exhibited no signs of psychosis or
mania. Dr. Eichman assessed his reasoning, impulse control, and judgment as
“fair.” She noted he had a history of trafficking cell phones and drugs while he
was in the segregation unit at Pendleton. Dr. Eichman prescribed Prozac for his

3

panic attacks and noted that despite his history of noncompliance with Prozac,
she believed a trial of Prozac was clinically indicated to see if Mr. Davis would
have some relief from his reported symptoms. Two weeks later, on September
21, 2015, Mr. Davis had a mental health treatment plan review. Medical records
indicate he was taking Zantac and Prozac and he was stable on those
medications.
October 2015. Mr. Davis was treated on three occasions. First, he was seen
for an unscheduled nursing visit because he requested a change in his
medications. He denied having any suicidal ideation or desire to harm others
and was referred for a behavioral health evaluation. A few days later, Mr.
Dalrymple evaluated Mr. Davis because he was complaining of having anxiety
symptoms despite taking his prescribed medications. He asked for information
on astrology, yoga, and meditation, and Mr. Dalrymple agreed to look into getting
it. Mr. Davis told Mr. Dalrymple that his segregated classification was
psychologically detrimental to him. Mr. Dalrymple informed him that his
segregation status was an IDOC policy issue. He diagnosed Mr. Davis with ASPD.
A few days after that, Dr. Eichman reviewed Mr. Davis’s chart and increased his
dosage of his Prozac to address his reported symptoms.
November 2015. Dr. Eichman saw Mr. Davis in response to his complaints
of feeling more anxious. Mr. Davis requested a prescription of Geodon, an antipsychotic medication, that he had been given at an earlier facility. Dr. Eichman
noted that Geodon was most likely discontinued at Pendleton because Mr.
Davis’s clinical presentation wasn’t consistent with his reported symptoms. She

4

determined that a trial of Geodon, contingent on his compliance, was reasonable
to see if Mr. Davis would experience some relief from his symptoms. Dr. Eichman
diagnosed Mr. Davis with ASPD.
December 2015. Mental health staff met with Mr. Davis because he had an
altercation with custody staff over his dissatisfaction with not being given a
gluten free meal tray. Mr. Davis told the mental health staff that he was “going
to take his boxers off and hang himself.” He was placed on suicide watch and
refused his medications and assessments.
Kimberlee Koehler, a mental health professional, met with who was on
suicide watch. Mr. Davis said he was “ready to get out of here.” He was agitated
about administrative issues and angry about not being given a gluten free meal
tray. He had also broken the sprinkler in his cell and had stolen pepper spray
from a custody officer. Mr. Davis threatened to hang himself with his boxers if
he wasn’t allowed to speak to higher level custody staff. Ms. Koehler told Mr.
Davis that the supervising officer would address his concerns about having
gluten free meal trays. Mr. Davis refused to have allergy lab tests done to assess
his need for a gluten free diet.
After her meeting with Mr. Davis, Ms. Koehler consulted with Dr. Eddie
Taylor, who was the lead psychologist at Westville and oversaw the mental health
program and mental health professionals, about Mr. Davis’s altercation with
custody staff about not being given a gluten free tray and her assessment of his
condition. After reviewing the situation, Dr. Taylor recommended that Mr. Davis
remain on suicide watch and be reevaluated in 24 hours.

5

Mr. Davis was released from suicide monitoring. He admitted his suicide
threat was related to his frustration over being denied a gluten free meal tray.
Mr. Davis asked that he be given a specific diagnosis so that he could be released
from segregated housing. The next day, Dr. Eichman ordered Mr. Davis’s
medications to be discontinued because he had refused ten of his last 20 doses
of medication.
January 2016. Ms. Koehler met with Drs. Eichman and Taylor to discuss
Mr. Davis’s request for a specific diagnosis—an Axis 1 diagnosis—such as
depression so that he could be prescribed medications and released from
segregated housing. Dr. Eichman indicated Mr. Davis’s diagnosis was ASPD,
there was no medication that specifically treated ASPD, and there was no basis
for changing his diagnosis or prescribing further medications. She explained that
Mr. Davis had been prescribed the medications he requested but they didn’t
change his behavior or alleviate his symptoms. Dr. Eichman discontinued Mr.
Davis’s medications because they weren’t clinically indicated based on his
diagnosis, his observed behaviors, and his medical record. Dr. Taylor didn’t have
the authority to prescribe or order medication. In sum, Dr. Eichman concluded
that Mr. Davis’s noncompliance with his medications, altercations with custody
staff, threatening behavior toward staff, threats of self-harm if others did not
comply with his wishes, manipulation, destruction of property, and overt
violations of prison rules were consistent with a diagnosis of ASPD.
February 2016. Dr. Eichman entered a note in Mr. Davis’s medical chart
stating he refused a visit with her and his medications were discontinued due to

6

his noncompliance. His January 2016 medication administration record showed
he was no longer being prescribed Prozac and Geodon. While Mr. Davis reported
he would like to have his medications reinstated, he didn’t report any withdrawal
symptoms when he stopped taking Prozac and Geodon. Later that month, Ms.
Koehler noted Mr. Davis didn’t report any mental health concerns and hadn’t
repeated his suicide ideations. She noted he had refused to see his psychiatrist.
March 2016. Mr. Dalrymple met with Mr. Davis at his cell to assess his
behavioral health. Mr. Davis was offered an out of cell visit, but he refused. Mr.
Davis was awake, alert and there were no abnormalities observed or reported.
Mr. Dalrymple reviewed Mr. Davis’s mental health treatment plan and noted that
his symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of ASPD. He recommended that
mental health staff continue to monitor Mr. Davis while he was in restricted
housing and told Mr. Davis to submit a heath care request if he required
treatment.
About a week later, Mr. Davis once again refused to attend a psychiatric
appointment with Dr. Eichman. She noted that Mr. Davis’s appointment would
not be rescheduled.
April 2016. Mr. Dalrymple met with Mr. Davis to assess his behavioral
health. Mr. Davis refused an out of cell visit, but his mental health assessment
was within normal limits and he had no specific requests for mental health care.
Medical records indicate that he didn’t have an Axis 1 mental health diagnosis
and hadn’t been on medications since December 30, 2015.

7

June 2016. Mr. Davis underwent another behavioral health assessment.
Mr. Dalrymple reviewed Mr. Davis’s mental health treatment goals and noted his
reported anxiety symptoms weren’t impairing his daily functioning. As such, the
goal of reducing anxiety was discontinued. Mr. Davis also no longer reported
depressive symptoms because they had been addressed by his positive coping
skills. Although it was noted that he repeatedly refused out of cell visits with his
mental health professionals and rarely spoke to them, he appeared to be stable
in restricted housing.
July 2016, Mr. Davis was treated on four occasions. First, Mr. Davis was
seen for a behavioral health assessment. He again refused an out of cell visit and
made no specific requests about his mental health. His mental status exam was
essentially normal. Second, medical staff examined Mr. Davis because he was
seen inserting a cell phone and charger into his anus. He reported that nothing
was wrong and refused care. He later agreed to be transported by ambulance to
the emergency room. When Mr. Davis returned from the hospital, he was placed
in a restricted holding cell where he refused medical treatment. On the third
occasion, Mr. Davis again refused medical treatment. The next day, during a
mental health visit, Mr. Davis inquired as to when he could return to his cell and
refused medical treatment.
August-October 2016. A mental health professional met with Mr. Davis four
times to assess his behavioral health. He continued to refuse out of cell visits,
but he didn’t voice any complaints.

8

November

2016.

Mr.

Davis

underwent

three

behavioral

health

assessments. First, he refused an out of cell visit, said he wasn’t getting gluten
free meal trays, and demanded he be released from restrictive housing. On A few
days later, Mr. Davis indicated he might be willing to have an out of cell visit and
was told that such a session was available, if he had a specific request. A week
after that, he again refused an out of cell visit, but he didn’t voice any complaints.
December 2016--January 2017. Mr. Davis had four more behavioral health
assessments. First, Ms. Dana Mizgate observed Mr. Davis and noted that he was
hostile, demanding, and defensive. He was verbally aggressive toward her and
demanded he be allowed to see custody officers. When she didn’t respond in the
way he wanted, Mr. Davis asked “[D]o I have to say I’m suicidal to get custody
up here?” Two weeks later, Mr. Davis submitted a health care request stating he
would now like to participate in out of cell mental health evaluations. Mr. Davis
was told that he would be placed on the list for out of cell meetings. Two weeks
later and again a week after that, Ms. Mizgate met with him at his cell and noted
his mental status exam was within normal limits. Ms. Mizgate tried to meet with
Mr. Davis the following week, but she couldn’t do so because he had been
removed from his cell for breaking the shower head. She noted she would followup with him the following week.
February--May 2017.

Mr.

Davis

was

seen

for

behavioral

health

assessments five times between the beginning of February and the middle of
May. Mr. Davis’s mental health exam was within normal limits at each visit, and
he voiced no complaints.

9

May--June 2017. Michelle Boren, a mental health professional, completed
behavior health assessments of Mr. Davis twice in this span. The first time, she
noted there was nothing remarkable about his condition and told him to submit
a request form if he required mental health services. The second time Ms. Boren
met with Mr. Davis to discuss his treatment plan and goals. Mr. Davis told Ms.
Boren that he struggled with not being able to control his feelings and pushed
his family away because he couldn’t deal with them. They discussed different
ways to address his anger and how to prevent others from controlling his
feelings. She told Mr. Davis that she would provide him with a “thinking patterns
worksheet.” He appeared to be receptive to working on a number of issues but
struggled with being able to cope with certain concepts. Ms. Boren noted that
Mr. Davis was compliant with his treatment plan, but had a history of trafficking
cell phones and drugs, and self-harm.
Mr. Davis had three incidents of misconduct incidents in mid-June. The
first incident involved Mr. Davis threatening a sergeant because he was upset
about the amount of food on his Ramadan tray. The other two incidents involved
Mr. Davis threatening another sergeant and trying to assault a custody officer
by throwing a book through his cuff port. He received conduct reports for the
incidents. Ms. Boren opined that Mr. Davis’s mental health history and diagnosis
weren’t factors in his misconduct.
Toward the end of June, Ms. Boren met with Mr. Davis in response to his
request for medication to treat his anxiety and depression. Ms. Boren told Mr.
Davis that she didn’t have the authority to prescribe or order medications. She

10

also told him that he would be seen to evaluate his symptoms and determine if
any referrals were needed. Ms. Boren met with Mr. Davis on a different day at
his cell front. Mr. Davis made no requests and Ms. Boren told him to submit a
request form if he had any mental health needs.
July 2017. Ms. Boren prepared an administrative note documenting that
Mr. Davis received a conduct report for attempted assault because a brown liquid
substance was found in front of his cell. Ms. Boren noted that Mr. Davis’s
diagnosis, mental health history, and current status, his mental health was not
a factor in the misconduct. The next day, Ms. Boren saw Mr. Davis at his cell
front, and he had no requests.
A nurse treated Mr. Davis because he complained of a swollen hand and
rash. The examining nurse said she couldn’t assess Mr. Davis because he
became verbally abusive toward her and threatened to “gun staff down.” Custody
staff witnessed this exchange.
August 2017. Ms. Boren assessed Mr. Davis’s behavioral health during her
weekly rounds. Mr. Davis indicated he wanted to be placed back on his
depression medication so that he could leave the restricted housing unit. Ms.
Boren again told him that she didn’t have the authority to prescribe or order
medication. She explained that he would continue to be seen during weekly
rounds and monthly reviews unless he submitted a specific request.
The next day, Mr. Davis received another conduct report for attempted
assault when a brown liquid substance with the odor of feces was found in front

11

of his cell. Ms. Mizgate noted that, given Mr. Davis’s diagnosis, mental health
history, and current status, his mental health wasn’t a factor in the misconduct.
Mr. Davis got another conduct report four days later because he was
unhappy with his kosher meal and threatened to throw bodily waste on custody
officers if they didn’t fix it. Ms. Boren opined that Mr. Davis’s mental health
wasn’t a factor his misconduct. During two cell visits with Ms. Boren, Mr. Davis
made no requests for mental health services.
September 2017. Ms. Boren assessed Mr. Davis’s behavioral health at his
cell front. He asked for some “busy work” and to be placed on the list for monthly
individual therapy sessions. Ms. Boren told Mr. Davis to submit a request if he
needed mental health treatment.
October 2017. Mr. Davis had an individual therapy session with Ms. Boren.
He initially discussed the struggles he had with anxiety and depression,
including his lack of energy and motivation. Mr. Davis also said that he had given
an honest effort to trying to control his mental health needs without medication
but didn’t feel it was going well. They talked about Mr. Davis journaling his
thoughts as well as using visualization and mediation for his symptoms. Because
Mr. Davis hadn’t completed the worksheets Ms. Boren had previously given him,
he was encouraged to complete those as well. Ms. Boren noted that Mr. Davis
was tearful and often seemed to be confused about his feelings. She told him she
would continue to follow-up with him during weekly rounds and monthly
individual sessions.

12

November 2017. Ms. Boren met with Mr. Davis four times on consecutive
days. First, Mr. Davis told Ms. Boren he had been struggling and demanding
help. Ms. Boren noted that Mr. Davis tended to engage in this pattern of behavior
around the holidays and would use any means to hurt himself when he was
angry and frustrated about his living conditions or felt he wasn’t being treated
fairly. He was placed on suicide monitoring because a small abrasion on his left
wrist indicated that he may have tried to cut himself.
Second, Ms. Boren met with Mr. Davis, and noted he continued to be
demanding and manipulative. He appeared to be frustrated and overwhelmed
because he wasn’t getting what he thought he deserved. Ms. Boren observed that
he appeared to switch between intimidating and super nice behavior to gain
control of his situation. She documented that he suffered more from personality
disorder traits than anything else and his psychotic symptoms weren’t
significant at the time.
Third, when Ms. Boren met with Mr. Davis, he reported he felt better and
acknowledged he was responsible for his own actions. Given his improved
condition, his temporary mental health placement was discontinued. And fourth,
Ms. Boren followed up with Mr. Davis and they discussed ways to change his
plans and his behavior. She noted Mr. Davis’s depression had improved and
wasn’t significant. He wasn’t suicidal and was compliant with his treatment plan.
December 2017. Mr. Davis again refused a monthly cell visit. He reported
that he felt fine and didn’t need to be seen.

13

II.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate “if the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The party seeking summary
judgment “bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the
basis for its motion and identifying” the evidence that “demonstrate[s] the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). Substantive law determines which facts are material; that is,
which facts might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “A party asserting
that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by . .
. citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the
materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or
that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court must view all facts
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
477 U.S. at 255. The court won’t “make credibility determinations, weigh the
evidence, or decide which inferences to draw from the facts; these are jobs for a
factfinder.” Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2003). Summary
judgment isn’t a substitute for a trial on the merits or a vehicle for resolving
factual disputes. Waldridge v. Am. Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920 (7th Cir.
1994). Instead, the court’s only task in ruling on a motion for summary judgment

14

is “to decide, based on the evidence of record, whether there is any material
dispute of fact that requires a trial.” Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d at 770. If a
reasonable factfinder could find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary
judgment can’t be granted. Id.

III.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Davis’s amended complaint asserts that the defendants denied him
constitutionally adequate mental health care in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. He contends that, after he was transferred to Westville in April
2015, the defendants discontinued his medication and refused to provide him
with appropriate mental health treatment for his severe depression and anxiety.
Mr. Davis says he asked for mental health counseling and to be placed back on
his medication, but the defendants denied his requests. He says his mental
health was deteriorating because he was hearing voices, having panic attacks,
and had uncontrollable depression with constant thoughts of suicide. Mr. Davis
claims that, without appropriate treatment, the defendants simply left him to
“suffer.”
The defendants say there are no genuine issues of material fact as to Mr.
Davis’s alleged inadequate mental health care claim. They contend the medical
record and affidavits establish that Mr. Davis received constitutionally
appropriate mental health care because he had access to a psychiatrist,
psychologist, and mental health professionals, who consistently evaluated and
responded to his mental health needs. The defendants point out that Mr. Davis

15

had a history of refusing mental health treatment, including many incidents of
being noncompliant with taking prescribed medications. His medications were
discontinued because he had a history of refusing to take his medications and
trafficking drugs. The defendants further assert that Mr. Davis was provided with
appropriate mental health treatment because he had access to weekly and
individual therapy sessions.
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).
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

16

the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir.
2008). An inmate’s mere disagreement with medical professionals about the
appropriate course of treatment does not establish deliberate indifference, nor
does negligence or even medical malpractice. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742,
751 (7th Cir. 2011).
A. Dr. Barbara Eichman
Mr. Davis asserts that Dr. Eichman knew he needed prescription
medication, but she decided to discontinue it. He says he’s been on medication
for years and it has provided him with much needed relief from his anxiety and
depressive symptoms. Mr. Davis claims Dr. Eichman’s abrupt decision to
discontinue his medication showed she was deliberately indifferent to his mental
health needs and caused him unnecessary suffering.
The record in this case shows Dr. Eichman’s care met constitutional
standards.

There is no evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could

conclude that her decision to discontinue Mr. Davis’s medications was
inconsistent with sound professional judgment. Dr. Eichman was responsible
for Mr. Davis’s direct care during the period covered by this lawsuit. She
diagnosed him with ASPD and noted that there is no specific medication to treat
ASPD, though medications could be prescribed to treat symptoms, such as
anxiety or depression, that are associated with ASPD.
Dr. Eichman exercised her professional judgment in treating Mr. Davis
and diagnosed him with ASPD. She based her diagnosis on his mental health
history, clinical presentation, and reported symptoms. Despite his history of

17

being noncompliant in taking medications and trafficking drugs in prison, Dr.
Eichman prescribed trials of Prozac and Geodon, at Mr. Davis’s request, in an
effort to improve his symptoms. However, because Mr. Davis refused to take
these trial medications, Dr. Eichman discontinued them because he was
noncompliant and did not show any improvement. She also considered Mr.
Davis’s request for a clinical diagnosis of depression or anxiety, but in her
professional judgment she determined there was no basis for changing his
diagnosis or prescribing further medication. She concluded that Mr. Davis’s
history of noncompliance with his medications, altercations with custody staff,
threatening behavior toward staff, threats of self-harm if others didn’t comply
with his wishes, manipulation, destruction of property, and overt violations of
prison rules were consistent with a diagnosis of ASPD. Given the extensive
mental health record detailing the personalized, professional mental health care
Mr. Davis received from Dr. Eichman, no reasonable fact finder could find on
this record that she was deliberately indifferent to his serious need for mental
health treatment.
B. Eddie Taylor
Mr. Davis argues that Dr. Taylor denied him medical treatment when he
stopped his medication. He claims that Dr. Taylor failed to provide him with any
treatment and he engaged in acts of self-harm as a result. Thus, Mr. Davis
asserts that Dr. Taylor’s refusal to provide him with mental health treatment
showed he was deliberately indifferent to his serious mental health needs and
caused him unnecessary suffering. Id.

18

The record in this case establishes that—to the extent he was involved in
Mr. Davis’s care at all—Dr. Taylor provided Mr. Davis with constitutionally
adequate care. Dr. Taylor’s role as the lead psychologist at Westville was
primarily administrative. He oversaw the mental health program and mental
health professionals, who provided direct care to Mr. Davis. Dr. Taylor didn’t
have authority to prescribe or order medication.
Dr. Taylor had a limited role in treating Mr. Davis and participated in only
two incidents involving Mr. Davis’s mental health care. First, he decided that Mr.
Davis should remain on suicide watch after he had an altercation with custody
officers about his request for a gluten free meal tray. Dr. Taylor also participated
in a discussion with Dr. Eichman and Ms. Koehler about Mr. Davis’s request for
a specific diagnosis so that he could be prescribed medications and released from
the segregated housing unit. Dr. Taylor’s treatment was based on Mr. Davis’s
clinical presentation, observed behavior, and history of refusing treatment and
medication, which he found to be consistent with a diagnosis of ASPD. Mr. Davis
complains that Dr. Taylor denied him medical treatment when he stopped his
medication, but Dr. Taylor didn’t have the authority to prescribe or order
medication. No reasonable fact finder could find on this record that Dr. Taylor
was deliberately indifferent to his serious need for mental health treatment.
C. Michelle Boren
Mr. Davis contends that Ms. Boren knew he needed mental health
counseling but refused to provide it. He claims that each time she made rounds,
he told her he needed help, but she would only provide him with information on

19

journaling. Thus, Mr. Davis asserts that Ms. Boren’s refusal to provide him with
the treatment he needed showed she was deliberately indifferent to his serious
mental health needs and caused him unnecessary suffering.
The summary judgment record shows that Ms. Boren provided
constitutionally appropriate care. Ms. Boren provided Mr. Davis with ample
mental health counseling as she routinely met with him during her weekly
rounds and monthly sessions. During her visits with Mr. Davis, she would
frequently assess his behavioral health, review his treatment plan and goals, and
discuss ways, including journaling techniques, he could use to address his
anger. Ms. Boren also met with Mr. Davis for an individual therapy session
during which they discussed his difficulties dealing with his anxiety and
depression. She further observed that Mr. Davis suffered from ASPD and noted
he was demanding, manipulative, frustrated, and overwhelmed when he was not
able to get what he thought he deserved. Her treatment notes show that, at times,
Mr. Davis would refuse to come out of his cell to meet with her and he made few
requests for mental health care. Ms. Boren told Mr. Davis to submit a request
form if he required mental health services. To the extent Mr. Davis might be
claiming that Ms. Boren refused to provide him with medication, she didn’t have
the authority to prescribe or order medication. Given the role Ms. Boren played
in Mr. Davis’s care, no reasonable fact finder could find on this record that she
was deliberately indifferent to Mr. Davis’s need for mental health treatment.

IV.

CONCLUSION

20

For the reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 64), and
(2) DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants Eddie
Taylor, Dr. Barbara Eichman, and Michelle Boren, and close this case.
SO ORDERED on September 21, 2020

s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21