Stewart II v. Goldsmith et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Robert E. Stewart, II, leave to proceed against Sheriff Bob Goldsmith in his official capacity for injunctive relief to provide Robert Stewart with adequate medical care for his hernia, as required by the Eighth Amendment; DISMISSES all other claims; DISMISSES Quality Correctional Care and Thomas Lehman; DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to locate and serve process on) Sheriff Bob Goldsmith at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department, with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF #1 ); DIRECTS the clerk to fax or email a copy of the same documents to Sheriff Bob Goldsmith at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff's Department; ORDERS Sheriff Bob Goldsmith to file and serve a response to the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction no later than 2/28/2024, with supporting documentation and declarations from staff as necessary, addressing the plaintiff's current medical condition, what treatment has been provided to date, and what additional treatment (if any) is contemplated; ORDERS Robert Stewart, II to file a reply to Sheriff Bob Goldsmith's declaration, if any, within fourteen days of receiving the declaration; and ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. 1997e(g)(2), Sheriff Bob Goldsmith to 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. Signed by Judge Philip P Simon on 2/7/2024. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ash)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
ROBERT E. STEWART, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAUSE NO. 4:24CV10-PPS/APR
BOB GOLDSMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Robert E. Stewart, II, a prisoner without a lawyer confined at the Tippecanoe
County Jail, filed a complaint because he believes he has received constitutionally
inadequate medical care for his hernia. ECF 1. Stewart has sued Tippecanoe County
Sheriff Bob Goldsmith, Quality Correctional Care, and Thomas Lehman. “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, I 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.
Stewart alleges that he suffers from a painful inguinal hernia. He further alleges
that medical staff at the jail have told him they would not do surgery and he would just
have to deal with it. Stewart asserts that he is in extreme pain and that surgery is
medically needed to relieve his pain. He does not indicate what treatment, if any, has
been provided. He seeks both an injunction in the form of surgery and monetary
damages.
Stewart has sued Jail Commander Thomas Lehman. He says that he has been
mistreated by Lehman and that, at some undisclosed time in the past, Lehman lied in an
affidavit related to a different medical grievance. Stewart does not allege that Jail
Commander Lehman was involved in making decisions regarding his medical care.
Stewart’s allegations regarding a different medical grievance are not connected to his
claim regarding inadequate medical care for his hernia and do not state a claim.
Therefore, I will not grant Stewart leave to proceed against Jail Commander Lehman.
Stewart also sued Quality Correctional Care, a private company that provides
medical care at the jail. “Private corporations acting under color of state law may, like
municipalities, be held liable for injuries resulting from their policies and practices.”
Hahn v. Walsh, 762 F.3d 617, 640 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Rice ex rel. Rice v. Corr. Med.
Servs., 675 F.3d 650, 675 (7th Cir. 2012)). However, “[a] municipality may not be held
liable under § 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious liability.”
Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482, 492 (7th Cir. 2007). Because Stewart’s complaint only
describes the actions—or inaction—of the medical staff in connection with his own
treatment, I will not permit him to proceed against Quality Correctional Care.
Finally, Stewart sued Sheriff Goldsmith. Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates
are entitled to constitutionally adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). However, there is no general respondeat superior liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2
“Only persons who cause or participate in the violations are responsible.” George v.
Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2007). “[P]ublic employees are responsible for their
own misdeeds but not for anyone else’s.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir.
2009). Furthermore, non-medical staff rely on medical experts and are “entitled to
relegate to the prison’s medical staff the provision of good medical care.” Id. at 595.
Sheriff Goldsmith is entitled to rely on the judgment of the medical staff at the prison to
decide what specific treatment is appropriate for Stewart. Thus, Stewart has not stated a
claim against Sheriff Goldsmith in his individual capacity for monetary damages. It is,
however, the Sheriff of Tippecanoe County who has both the authority and the
responsibility of ensuring that Stewart receives adequate medical treatment while he is
an inmate at the Tippecanoe County Jail. See e.g. Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315
(7th Cir. 2011). Therefore, I will permit Stewart to proceed against Sheriff Goldsmith in
his official capacity to the extent he seeks injunctive relief.
That said, the specific injunctive relief Stewart requests—namely, to have the
surgery performed as soon as possible—may not be ordered even if it is ultimately
determined that his current treatment is inadequate. While it is true that Stewart must
be provided with constitutionally adequate medical care, there may be several ways of
doing so that do not involve surgery. Simply put, Stewart cannot dictate how such
medical care is provided. See Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2012) (The
Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates that “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
3
right.”) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted)); see also Forbes v.
Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997) (Inmates are neither “entitled to demand specific
care [nor] entitled to the best care possible.”). Therefore, injunctive relief—if granted—
would be limited to requiring that Sheriff Goldsmith ensure that Stewart receives
medical treatment for his hernia to the extent required by the Constitution, which may
or may not include surgery.
ACCORDINGLY, the court:
(1) GRANTS Robert E. Stewart, II, leave to proceed against Sheriff Bob
Goldsmith in his official capacity for injunctive relief to provide Robert Stewart with
adequate medical care for his hernia, as required by the Eighth Amendment;
(2) DISMISSES all other claims;
(3) DISMISSES Quality Correctional Care and Thomas Lehman;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to request Waiver of Service
from (and if necessary, the United States Marshals Service to use any lawful means to
locate and serve process on) Sheriff Bob Goldsmith at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s
Department, with a copy of this order and the complaint (ECF 1);
(5) DIRECTS the clerk to fax or email a copy of the same documents to Sheriff
Bob Goldsmith at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Department;
(6) ORDERS Sheriff Bob Goldsmith to file and serve a response to the plaintiff’s
request for a preliminary injunction no later than February 28, 2024, with supporting
documentation and declarations from staff as necessary, addressing the plaintiff’s
4
current medical condition, what treatment has been provided to date, and what
additional treatment (if any) is contemplated;
(7) ORDERS Robert Stewart, II to file a reply to Sheriff Bob Goldsmith’s
declaration, if any, within fourteen days of receiving the declaration; and
(8) ORDERS, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Sheriff Bob Goldsmith to 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.
SO ORDERED on February 7, 2024.
/s/ Philip P. Simon
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?