Hansen v. Wexford Health
Filing
7
OPINION AND ORDER: The court DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner Complaint Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) and send it to Blaine M. Hansen, GRANTS Blaine M. Hansen until 12/15/21 to file an amended complaint on that form a nd CAUTIONS Blaine M. Hansen that if he does not respond by that deadline, this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A because the current complaint does not state a claim. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 11/15/21. (Copy mailed as directed in Order). (nal)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BLAINE M. HANSEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 3:21-CV-235-RLM-MGG
WEXFORD HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Blaine M. Hansen, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an amended complaint.
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. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. “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).
Mr. Hansen alleges that on June 15, 2020, he dropped a boiling hotpot on his
right foot, causing second and third degree burns. He was taken to the medical unit
where his foot was treated and bandaged. The medical staff told him he would get
medical treatment and clean bandages for his foot on a daily basis, but Mr. Hansen
says he was denied medical treatment for his foot after that despite his multiple
requests for treatment. Mr. Hansen explains that, on July 1, 2020, he began
recording the dates and times he was denied treatment but claims the
denial of treatment actually began on June 27, 2020. Mr. Hansen asserts that,
on six occasions, from July 1 to July 3, 2020, he asked R.N. Ashley, R.N. Chad, and
R.N. A. Wilson for medical treatment and clean bandages, but they denied his
requests and left him in the same pus-filled bandage. He says he put in healthcare
requests about the pain and numbness in his right foot and R. N. Chad told him that
he had sustained nerve damage to his foot. Thus, according to Mr. Hansen, he now
has permanent pain and damage to his left foot because he didn’t receive appropriate
medical treatment.
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).
2
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 the decision on
such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). “Negligence
on the part of an official does not violate the Constitution, and it is not enough that
he or she should have known of a risk. Instead, deliberate indifference requires
evidence that an official actually knew of a substantial risk of serious harm and
consciously disregarded it nonetheless.” Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 902 (7th
Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). It’s not enough to show that a defendant merely failed
to act reasonably. Gibbs v. Franklin, 49 F.3d 1206, 1208 (7th Cir. 1995). Even
incompetence doesn’t amount to deliberate indifference. Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d
824, 831-32 (7th Cir. 2010). A delay in providing treatment can constitute deliberate
indifference when it causes unnecessary pain or suffering. Arnett v. Webster, 658
F.3d 742, 752-53 (7th Cir. 2011); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 779 (7th Cir.
2008).
While Mr. Hansen’s allegations are concerning, he hasn’t alleged facts from
which it can be plausibly inferred that R.N. Ashley, R.N. Chad, and R.N. Wilson were
deliberately indifferent to his need for treatment for his right foot. The complaint
indicates that after Mr. Hansen dropped a hotpot on his right foot, he was taken to
the medical unit where his foot was treated and bandaged, and he was told he would
continue to receive treatment for his foot. While Mr. Hansen claims R.N. Ashley, R.N.
3
Chad, and R.N. Wilson were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs because
they denied him bandage changes from July 1 to 3, 2020, he hasn’t pleaded facts from
which it can be plausibly inferred that he had a medical need for bandage changes
during this period. Furthermore, he hasn’t explained why he believes there is a link
between his allegations of pain and numbness in his foot and not having his bandages
changed frequently enough. Mr. Hansen hasn’t stated a claim of deliberate
indifference.
Furthermore, Mr. Hansen has sued Wexford Health.1 A private company
performing a state function can be held liable to the same extent as a municipal entity
under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). See Rice
v. Corr. Med. Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 675 (7th Cir. 2012) (Monell framework applies to
private company providing medical care at correctional facility). But a corporation
“cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Calhoun v.
Ramsey, 408 F.3d 375, 379 (7th Cir. 2005). Rather corporate liability exists only
“when execution of a [corporation’s] policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury.” Id. Mr.
Hansen hasn’t identified any specific policy or practice maintained by Wexford that
resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights, so he can’t proceed against
Wexford.
As a final matter, in the absence of a federal claim, the court does not need to
consider Mr. Hansen’s state law negligence and medical malpractice claims he has
asserted against Wexford. He may replead these claims in his amended complaint.
1
The court construes Wexford Health to mean Wexford of Indiana, LLC.
4
While Mr. Hansen’s amended complaint doesn’t state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, the court will give him a chance to replead, if after reviewing this
order, he believes he can state a claim. Luevano v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d
1014, 1022-23, 1025 (7th Cir. 2013); Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.
2006). If and when Mr. Hansen prepares his next amended complaint, he should
explain in his own words what happened, when it happened, where it happened, who
was involved, and how he was personally injured, providing as much detail as
possible.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to place this cause number on a blank Prisoner
Complaint Pro Se 14 (INND Rev. 2/20) and send it to Blaine M. Hansen;
(2) GRANTS Blaine M. Hansen until December 15, 2021, to file an amended
complaint on that form; and
(3) CAUTIONS Blaine M. Hansen that if he does not respond by that deadline,
this case will be dismissed without further notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
because the current complaint does not state a claim.
SO ORDERED on November 15, 2021
s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
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?