MANNS v. LECLERC, M.D. et al

Filing 115

ENTRY DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - Because the Court made a correct ruling on the Nurse Defendants' motion for summary judgment and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that ruling has been shown, the Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 104 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/16/2013. Copy Mailed. (JD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
GARY E. MANNS,
Plaintiff,
v.
KIM GRAY, LISA WOLFE,
and ASHLEY WAGGLER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:11-cv-1550-TWP-MJD

ENTRY DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Director of Nursing Kim Gray (“Nurse
Gray”), Nurses Lisa Wolfe (“Nurse Wolf”), and Ashley Waggler (“Nurse Waggler”)
(collectively, the “Nurse Defendants”) Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Entry on Motion
for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff Gary E. Manns (“Mr. Manns”), an Indiana prisoner, brought
suit against numerous medical care providers at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
(“Wabash”) alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Nurse
Defendants sought resolution of this matter through summary judgment. Summary judgment in
their favor was denied (see Dkt. 103).

For the reasons explained below, the Motion for

Reconsideration (Dkt. 104) is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND
The Court’s Entry of September 20, 2013 (Dkt. 103) explained that given the testimony
of Mr. Manns there are numerous material facts in dispute regarding what occurred on October
30, 2011 and November 4, 2011. If Mr. Manns’ testimony were believed, a reasonable jury

could conclude that the Nurse Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs.
Specifically, Mr. Manns testified that on October 30, 2011, he experienced what he
believed was a minor stroke, a transient ischemic attack (“TIA”). After he was taken to the
infirmary, the Nurse Defendants claimed that Mr. Manns was faking his medical condition and
refused to render any medical assistance. Nurses Wolfe and Waggler did nothing but berate Mr.
Manns for several hours, calling him everything but a human being. They were cursing Mr.
Manns and claimed that he was faking, and threatened that he would not get any pain
medication. The Nurse Defendants allowed Mr. Manns to fall from the examination table onto
the floor, and then allowed Mr. Manns to lie on the cold concrete floor for several hours,
partially paralyzed and unable to speak, and continually inflicted physical and verbal abuse on
Mr. Manns by stating: “Why don’t you just f**king die, you piece of s**t, because we are tired
of you.” Mr. Manns testified that he was physically abused by the Nurse Defendants, and was
kicked in the testicles and in the head in an attempt to force him to get up. The Nurse
Defendants then threatened to inject a needle into Mr. Manns’ heart in order to force him to get
up. Nurse Gray informed Nurses Wolfe and Waggler that Mr. Manns would not be sent to the
hospital unless his heart quit beating or he stopped breathing. See Dkt. 99 at 2-3 (citing Manns’
Aff., Dkt. 100-1 at ¶ 15).
On November 4, 2011, Mr. Manns experienced what he believes to be another minor
stroke and was taken to the infirmary. Mr. Manns testified that Nurses Newberry, Gray, Wolfe,
and Waggler ignored him, claiming that he was faking his medical condition and continually
inflicted mental and emotional abuse. (See Manns’ Aff., Dkt. 100-1 at ¶17.)

2

This Court held that given this testimony, the resolution of claims against Nurses Wolfe,
Nurse Waggler and Director of Nursing Gray was not appropriate on summary judgment.
II. MOTION TO RECONSIDER
A motion to reconsider is designed to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present
newly discovered evidence. Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Publications, Inc., 762
F.2d 557, 561 (7th Cir. 1985). For example, a motion for reconsideration is appropriate when:
(1) a court has patently misunderstood a party; (2) a court has made a decision outside the
adversarial issues presented; (3) a court has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension;
or (4) a change in the law or facts has occurred since the submission of the issue. On the other
hand, a motion for reconsideration is an “improper vehicle to introduce evidence previously
available or to tender new legal theories.” Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 404
(7th Cir. 1986).
The Nurse Defendants now ask the Court to reconsider the September 20, 2013 Entry
(Dkt. 103) and to grant summary judgment in their favor. The Nurse Defendants argue that Mr.
Manns’ “testimony regarding the statements and conduct attributed to Nurses Wolfe, Waggler
and Gray should not be adopted as undisputed facts under Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380
(2007).” Dkt. 104 at p. 4. This argument lacks traction. First, Mr. Manns’ testimony was not
adopted as an undisputed fact. Instead, the Court, as it is required at this stage in the litigation,
reviewed “the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and [drew] all
reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.” Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted).
Second, the Nurse Defendants argue that Mr. Manns’ testimony should be disregarded
because the medical records reflect that he received medical care between October 20, 2011 and

3

November 4, 2011. Given his medical record, they argue, no reasonable jury could believe that
nurses who were not involved in Mr. Manns’ care ignored, cursed or kicked him, or prevented
him from obtaining adequate medical care. In support, the Nurse Defendants reference the
Supreme Court’s holding in Scott v. Harris; that is, when “opposing parties tell two different
stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could
believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for
summary judgment.” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380. In Scott, the factual issue of whether a motorist
fleeing law enforcement officials was driving in a fashion which endangered human life at the
time the officers rammed his vehicle from behind to end the chase was in dispute. The nonmoving party’s version of events was discredited by a videotape that recorded what actually
happened. Id. at 378. Unlike a videotape, Mr. Manns’ medical records do not objectively negate
his testimony. If there was a videotape or other compelling record which “utterly discredited”
Mr. Mann’s version of events, the Court would be happy to consider it; however, there is not.
The Nurse Defendants did not provide even an affidavit in support of their position. The only
evidence offered in support of the Nurse Defendants’ position is Mr. Manns’ medical record.
The fact that a medical provider failed to record their intentional abuse of a patient in the medical
record is not outcome determinative.
Third, the Nurse Defendants argue that because Mr. Manns’ testimony has been
inconsistent it is not credible. This, however, is an issue for the trier of fact to determine.
Finally, contrary to the Nurse Defendants’ assertions, Mr. Manns’ evidence is sufficient
to establish that he had a serious medical need and that the Nurse Defendants were deliberately
indifferent to his serious medical need. The injuries (delay of treatment and physical and
psychological abuse) are obvious.

4

III. CONCLUSION
Because the Court made a correct ruling on the Nurse Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment and no persuasive basis for reconsidering that ruling has been shown, the Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 104) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
12/16/2013
Date: __________________

________________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

DISTRIBUITON:
Gary E. Manns, #922454
Indiana State Prison
Inmate Mail/Parcels
One Park Row
Michigan City, Indiana 46360
J. Richard Moore
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL
[e-mail]
James F. Bleeke
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL
[e-mail]

Jeb Adam Crandall
BLEEKE DILLON CRANDALL
[e-mail]

5