TAYLOR v. VAISVILAS et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 97 Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 59(e). Because Taylor has not presented any newly discovered evidence or demonstrated that the Court made a m anifest error of law, the Court DENIES his Motion to Alter or Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Dkt. 97.] The Court recently received a request from Taylor for a copy of the docket sheet in this matter. [Dkt. 98.] The Court GRANTS that request and directs the Clerk to enclose a copy of the docket sheet when it mails this entry to Taylor (See Order for additional information). Copy to Plaintiff via U S Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/10/2013. (SWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
JOSEPH TAYLOR,
Plaintiff,
v.
CORIZON MEDICAL SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-1436-JMS-DKL

ORDER
On August 30, 2013, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on
pro se Plaintiff Joseph Taylor’s Eighth Amendment claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [Dkt.
93 at 12.]

To the extent Taylor asserted any state law claims, the Court relinquished

supplemental jurisdiction over those claims and remanded them to state court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). [Id.] On September 20, 2013, Taylor filed a Motion to Alter or Amend
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Dkt. 97.] For the following reasons, that
motion is DENIED.
The purpose of a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e) is to have the
Court reconsider matters “properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.” Osterneck v. Ernst
and Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1988). Rule 59(e) allows the Court to alter or amend a
judgment “only if the petitioner can demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly
discovered evidence.”

Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 494 (7th Cir. 2008) (citation

omitted).
Taylor has not presented any newly discovered evidence; thus, his motion must be denied
unless he can demonstrate a manifest error of law. Taylor’s legal argument hinges on his belief
that the Court ignored his claim that prescribed medical care for irritable bowel syndrome was

1

interfered with and that “[s]uch conduct amounts to deliberate indifference.” [Dkt. 97 at 6-9.]
But Taylor disregards that the Court concluded, based on cited case law, that “[n]othing in the
Eighth Amendment, which prohibits certain punishment, requires a state to provide an inmate,
free of charge, with a necessary commodity that would not be free outside the prison walls and
which the inmate has the legal means to obtain.” [Dkt. 93 at 9 (citations omitted).] Specifically,
“[i]f the inmate can afford the medicine but chooses to apply his resources elsewhere, it is the
inmate, and not the prison official, who is indifferent to serious medical needs.” [Id.] Taylor
does not challenge that holding as a manifest error of law. While he tries to advance a separate
claim for interference with prescribed treatment, Taylor ignores that such a claim fails because of
the Court’s unchallenged holding that he had no Eighth Amendment right to that treatment in the
first place.
The evidence presented on summary judgment established that Taylor had the legal
means and resources to obtain a fiber supplement from the commissary but chose to apply his
resources elsewhere. [Dkt. 93 at 7-8.] While Taylor challenges the Court’s conclusion that he
could afford the available fiber supplement, [dkt. 97 at 9], as the Court pointed out in its
summary judgment order, he provided no evidence supporting that contention and Taylor’s
prison commissary records clearly showed otherwise, [dkt. 93 at 8]. See Johnson v. Cambridge
Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003) (reiterating that summary judgment “is the ‘put up
or shut up’ moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show what evidence it has that would
convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events”). Additionally, while Taylor argues that
he did not concede that the fiber supplement available at the commissary was equivalent to the
supplement he was prescribed, [dkt. 97 at 9], that argument contravenes his admission otherwise
on summary judgment, [dkt. 87 at 3-4], and, regardless, Taylor has no Eighth Amendment right

2

to “demand specific care[,]” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011).
Because Taylor has not presented any newly discovered evidence or demonstrated
that the Court made a manifest error of law, the Court DENIES his Motion to Alter or
Amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). [Dkt. 97.] The Court recently
received a request from Taylor for a copy of the docket sheet in this matter. [Dkt. 98.] The
Court GRANTS that request and directs the Clerk to enclose a copy of the docket sheet
when it mails this entry to Taylor.

10/10/2013

_______________________________
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

Distribution:
Joseph A. Taylor
DOC # 905002
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
All Electronically Registered Counsel

3