THOMPSON v. CONANT et al
Filing
92
Entry - Granting Motions for Summary Judgment and Directing Entry of Final Judgment ; Thompson's motion to give ruling [dkt. no 91] is granted. Thompson has not identified a genuine issue of material fact as to his claims that the defendant s were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The defendants' motions for summary judgment [dkt. nos. 51, 59] must be granted. The plaintiff's motion to oppose entry of summary judgment [dkt. no.69] is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 8/26/2013. Copy Mailed. (CKM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ROGER THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. CONANT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:12-cv-1177-SEB-TAB
Entry Granting Motions for Summary Judgment
and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
For the reasons explained in this Entry, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment
[dkt. nos. 51, 59] must be granted, and the plaintiff’s motion to oppose entry of summary
judgment [dkt. no. 69] is denied. The plaintiff’s motion to give ruling [dkt. no. 91] is granted.
I. Background
The plaintiff in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action is Roger Thompson
(“Thompson”), an inmate in custody at all relevant times at the Plainfield Correctional Facility
(“Plainfield”). The defendants are Dr. Conant, Catherine Keefer, Christina Maxwell, and Dr.
Qaisin Khan.
Thompson alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The defendants seek resolution of Thompson’s claims through the entry of summary
judgment. Thompson has opposed the motions for summary judgment.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
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.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). A dispute about a material fact is genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then there is no
“genuine” dispute. Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1776 (2007). The court views the facts in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the nonmovant=s favor. Ault v. Speicher, 634 F.3d 942, 945 (7th Cir. 2011).
Evidentiary materials submitted by the parties which comply with Rule 56 and Local
Rule 56.1 will be considered in addressing the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
Materials not in compliance with those standards will be disregarded. Defendant Maxwell’s
request to strike plaintiff’s response in opposition to her motion for summary judgment [dkt. 78],
however, is denied.1
III. Discussion
A. Undisputed Facts
On the basis of the pleadings and the portions of the expanded record that comply with
the requirements of Rule 56(c)(1), construed in a manner most favorable to Thompson as the
non-moving party, the following facts are undisputed for purposes of the motions for summary
judgment:
1
Paragraphs 18-21 of the Affidavit of Catherine Keefer are stricken because Ms. Keefer admits that they
were included in her affidavit in error.
Thompson arrived at Plainfield on or about October 14, 2010. At all relevant times,
defendant Catherine Keefer (“Ms. Keefer”) was a licensed mental health counselor at Plainfield.
Thompson was assigned to Ms. Keefer’s case load.
Ms. Keefer first met with Thompson on or about October 19, 2010. He reported a history
of anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by having received third degree burns from
hot grease spilled on him when he was four years old. He said that he had taken Valium and
Vicodin (for back pain) when he was in his twenties and they had been the most effective
treatment for him. During the session, Thompson became increasingly angry and uncooperative,
demanding Valium and Vicodin. Thompson was unreceptive to Ms. Keefer’s suggestions of
alternative psychiatric medications and treatment. It was Ms. Keefer’s opinion that Thompson’s
anxiety did not impair his ability to function.
On November 9, 2010, Ms. Keefer met with Thompson at his request. Although he
appeared more calm during this session, he continued to insist that he needed Vicodin and
Valium. Ms. Keefer offered to have a psychiatrist evaluate Thompson, which he refused.
Thompson also refused to acknowledge that he had been managing without addictive
medications.
On December 8, 2010, Ms. Keefer met with Thompson for another individual therapy
session. Thompson stated that he was surprised that he had managed to get along without Valium
and Vicodin. He discussed his work assignment, his daily routine. He had very strong feelings of
persecution and believed there was a conspiracy to keep him incarcerated. Ms. Keefer noted that
Thompson’s behavior was unremarkable, his mood was irritable, his reasoning, insight, and
judgment were poor, and he was able to understand and refrain from harmful action.
On January 8, 2011, Ms. Keefer saw Thompson while he was in segregation. Ms. Keefer
offered to conduct an individual therapy session outside of Thompson’s cell, however, he
declined. Thompson was alert, fully oriented, and cooperative, but his mood was irritable. He
denied any suicidal thoughts.
Defendant Dr. Conant has been Board Certified in psychiatry since 1983. Dr. Conant first
saw Thompson on or about January 27, 2011, due to Thompson’s complaints of anxiety. At that
time, it was Dr. Conant’s opinion that Thompson did not appear particularly anxious. Thompson
reported that while on the streets, he took Valium. Valium is a highly-addictive benzodiazepine
that can be used to treat anxiety disorders. Thompson was aware that Valium was not typically
prescribed in the prison setting due to its addictive nature and potential for abuse. Dr. Conant
recommended either Celexa or Trilafon for Thompson, both of which are non-addictive
medications used to treat anxiety. Thompson only wanted benzodiazepines and would not
consider an alternative medication.
Ms. Keefer met with Thompson again on March 4, 2011, upon his request. At that time,
Thompson continued to complain about not being prescribed Valium. In an effort to help
Thompson with his stress and anxiety issues, Ms. Keefer provided him with stress management
materials to take with him to read. On April 15, 2011, Ms. Keefer met with Thompson for an
individual therapy session. At that time, Thompson insisted that he needed Valium and Xanax to
function, and he was unwilling to accept other treatment options, including therapy. He used his
session time to argue his point about the medications. Ms. Keefer instructed Thompson to
follow-up as needed.
Defendant Dr. Qaisar Khan has been a licensed psychologist in the State of Indiana for 13
years. Dr. Khan first saw Thompson on or about May 3, 2011. At that time, Thompson was
angry and preoccupied with obtaining tranquilizers such as Valium. When Dr. Khan explained to
Thompson that Valium is not prescribed in prison, he became upset, angry, loud, and refused to
listen to other treatment options and strategies (including counseling and alternative medications)
to work on his anxiety. Thompson also threatened legal action as a result of not receiving
Valium. Dr. Khan instructed Thompson to follow up with her as needed.
On May 17, 2011, both Dr. Khan and Ms. Keefer met with Thompson. Thompson had
been sending 2-3 health requests daily, saying that he was not getting treatment for his anxiety.
Thompson continued to demand only Valium for his anxiety and refused all other treatment
options offered. Thompson was extremely loud and argumentative. He insisted that the only
treatment that worked for him was Valium.
On July 9, 2011, Ms. Keefer met with Thompson for an individual therapy session.
Thompson was on time, alert, fully oriented, and cooperative. Thompson related that all of his
problems, write ups, and stress were due to his anxiety. Ms. Keefer told Thompson that based on
the recent situations he had described, being written up and exchanging words with an officer, he
seemed to have issues with anger, frustration, and denial. At that time, Thompson agreed to give
psychiatric medications another try, so Ms. Keefer referred him to the psychiatrist.
Psychiatrist Dr. Conant saw Thompson for the second time on July 14, 2011. At that
time, Thompson again stated that the only medications that had helped his anxiety were
benzodiazepines such as Valium. Dr. Conant again explained to Thompson that those
medications were not available in the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”). Dr. Conant
again offered alternative medications for his anxiety including Celexa, Thorazine, and Trilafon
(also known as Perphenazine). Thompson agreed to try Trilafon. It was Dr. Conant’s opinion that
Thompson’s anxiety did not impair his ability to function. On July 26, 2011, Dr. Conant
increased Thompson’s Trilafon dosage.
Ms. Keefer met with Thompson for an individual therapy session again on August 12,
2011. Thompson relayed that he had started taking Trilafon for his anxiety, that it was effective,
and that he would like an increase in the dosage. Thompson admitted that he had missed a few
doses because he could not wake up in time to take them. Thompson then talked about Klonopin,
which is a highly addictive benzodiazepine. He had heard from other prisoners that it was still
being prescribed and he believed that he would benefit from the medication. Thompson became
frustrated and threatened to stop taking Trilafon.
On August 23, 2011, Thompson was a no-show for his appointment with psychologist
Dr. Khan. On August 25, 2011, Thompson was a no-show for his appointment with psychiatrist
Dr. Conant.
On September 15, 2011, Dr. Khan saw Thompson per his request. At that time,
Thompson would not answer Dr. Khan’s questions. Thompson’s only complaint was that he was
not getting Xanax, the anxiety medication he wanted. He told Dr. Khan that he wanted Dr.
Conant to obtain special permission to prescribe Xanax. Dr. Khan felt intimidated by the way
Thompson looked at her and stood close to her to show her something. Beyond demanding
particular medication, Thompson was not interested in discussing his anxiety and anger issues.
Dr. Khan instructed him to follow up as needed. It is the opinion of Dr. Khan and Ms. Keefer
that Thompson’s anxiety did not impair his daily functioning.
By September of 2011, Thompson had stopped taking his Trilafon (Perphenazine). It is
Dr. Conant’s opinion that by discontinuing his medication, Thompson did not give the
medication an adequate amount of time to work. It is Dr. Conant’s opinion that Thompson’s
anxiety issues did not require the use of benzodiazepines because those medications are highly
addictive and not appropriate for patients like Thompson who have a history of alcohol abuse.
At all relevant times, defendant Ms. Maxwell was a graduate student at the University of
Indianapolis working toward a doctorate of clinical psychology. From October 2011 to July
2012, Ms. Maxwell was a practicum student at Plainfield working with inmates under the
supervision of Dr. Khan, providing psychological evaluation and treatment.
Thompson was assigned to Ms. Maxwell’s caseload in February, 2012. During their first
meeting on February 1, 2012, Thompson’s appearance was appropriate. He was oriented to
person, place, time, and situation. He was not experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation. Ms.
Maxwell attempted to engage Thompson in the therapeutic process via the use of Socratic
questioning, empathy, and rapport building. Thompson stated that he was angry that he was not
prescribed the medication he believed he needed. He also stated, however, that he had been
doing “fine” since he stopped taking Trilafon, the medication prescribed by Dr. Conant. He said
that he was not experiencing any anxiety symptoms. Thompson did not engage in the therapeutic
process. Consequently, Ms. Maxwell allowed him to vent, hoping that he would later engage in
the therapeutic process to help him deal with his anxiety and anger. Thompson expressed an
understanding that he may follow up with mental health staff in the future as needed.
As part of her initial interview with Thompson on February 1, 2012, Ms. Maxwell
assessed his functioning using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. The GAF is a
tool used by mental health providers to assess overall psychological, social, and occupational
functioning. Thompson’s GAF of 60 indicated that he was able to function with only moderate
symptoms.
On March 26, 2012, Ms. Maxwell again met with Thompson for individual therapy. His
appearance was appropriate, and he was oriented to person, place, time, and situation. His affect
was appropriate. He reported that he was feeling anxious, so Ms. Maxwell offered him support
and talked with him about stress management techniques. He was angry that he was not being
prescribed Xanax. Ms. Maxwell explained to Thompson that she did not have any control over
what, if any, medications were prescribed for him, and that prescribing medication is beyond the
scope of practice for psychologists. Thompson affirmed that he was not experiencing either
suicidal or homicidal ideation. Ms. Maxwell made arrangements for Thompson to follow up with
her in one week.
After meeting with Thompson on March 26, 2012, Ms. Maxwell consulted with Dr. Khan
regarding the appropriate course of action for Thompson. Dr. Khan informed her that Thompson
was not an appropriate psychiatric referral because Thompson was not willing to comply with
any medication regimen other than a prescription of Xanax. In Ms. Maxwell's opinion,
Thompson’s functioning remained the same as it had been on February 1, with only moderate
symptoms.
On April 3, 2012, Ms. Maxwell met with Thompson for therapy. He was well groomed
and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. He was agitated, but was not experiencing
suicidal or homicidal ideation. He expressed anger at not being prescribed tranquilizers. He was
told that the IDOC did not allow tranquilizers to be prescribed. Ms. Maxwell explained that other
treatment options were available to him, including other medications. Thompson refused to
explore any other treatment options. Ms. Maxwell told him that he could follow up with her if he
requested a meeting. Thompson stated that what was being done to him was “illegal.”
On May 9, 2012, Ms. Maxwell met with Thompson again, at his request. He was well
groomed and dressed. He was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. He was not
experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation. He was distressed and angry about a letter he
received from IDOC administrators denying his requests for tranquilizers. He asked Ms.
Maxwell to give him a copy of the IDOC policy regarding the use of tranquilizers. Ms. Maxwell
told him that she did not have access to the information he was requesting. Ms. Maxwell also
told him again that she could not obtain tranquilizers, or any medication for him, because
therapists cannot prescribe medication. Ms. Maxwell also reminded him that she had previously
offered to conduct individual therapy with him and that she was still willing to work with him in
therapy if he wanted to actively and appropriately participate.
Ms. Maxwell explained in detail what participating in therapy would mean. Ms. Maxwell
explained to him the techniques of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), and explained that she
would be using CBT in working with him. Ms. Maxwell offered Thompson CBT because it has
repeatedly been shown to be effective with individuals who have symptoms of anxiety. Ms.
Maxwell also informed him that therapy would not be successful if he did not participate in the
therapeutic process. He stated that he understood, and agreed to participate appropriately in
individual therapy. Ms. Maxwell scheduled a therapy session for him for one week later, which
he did not attend. In her assessment, his functioning remained the same as it had been in
February, meaning that he was functioning with only moderate symptoms.
In the IDOC, inmates are given codes to reflect what, if any, mental health services the
inmate requires. On June 6, 2012, Thompson asked Ms. Maxwell to change his code to an “A”,
which would indicate the absence of any mental health needs. Ms. Maxwell consulted with her
supervisor Dr. Khan about Thompson’s request.
On June 27, 2012, Ms. Maxwell was scheduled to meet with Thompson for therapy. Ms.
Maxwell, however, was unexpectedly unable to attend, and Thompson was scheduled to meet
with her on July 5, 2012. He did not show up, and did not request any more meetings with her.
Ms. Maxwell’s practicum ended sometime during the week of July 16, 2012.
On July 31, 2012, psychologist Dr. Khan saw Thompson in response to his and custody’s
request. Thompson had complained that he was not being seen by mental health. During the
session, Thompson was loud and argued that there were more medications that could be given to
him. Dr. Khan tried to talk with Thompson and asked if he would like to see the psychiatrist.
Thompson would not respond and instead continued to argue and threatened that “you cannot get
rid of me, I will continue writing health requests.” Thompson accused Dr. Khan of lying on his
records by saying that he did not take his medication. Thompson was not listening to Dr. Khan,
so she told Thompson that the session was over. Thompson refused to leave and asked the
doctor’s first name. He finally left, calling Dr. Khan a “b-----“ and saying “you are all a piece of
sh—.” He told Dr. Khan to have her lawyer ready. Thompson was then written up and placed in
segregation. Dr. Khan never told Thompson that she would do nothing to help him with his
anxiety or anger issues. As a psychologist, Dr. Khan’s license does not allow her to prescribe
medications, therefore, she had no control over what medications Thompson received. It was Dr.
Khan’s determination that there was little she could offer Thompson because of his refusal to
engage in the process of counseling.
On August 24, 2012, Ms. Keefer evaluated Thompson while he was in segregation.
Thompson was initially asleep in his bed, but when awakened he was alert and oriented. His
mood was irritated and angry. Thompson continued to say that he was being denied Valium and
Xanax, which he believed were the only medications that would be effective in treating his
anxiety. Based on Ms. Keefer’s observation and interaction with Thompson, she determined that
he did not require a referral to psychiatry at that time. Ms. Keefer informed Thompson to follow
up with mental health as needed.
On October 5, 2012, Ms. Keefer saw Thompson in response to his request. Thompson
was again requesting tranquilizers. He spent most of the time in his session venting his
frustration about being denied the specific type of medication that he wanted. Ms. Keefer offered
to have Thompson evaluated by psychiatry, but he declined. Ms. Keefer also provided Thompson
with written materials regarding anxiety and anxiety reducing techniques. Upon leaving the
session, Thompson threatened Ms. Keefer by saying “you better get a good lawyer.” Ms. Keefer
wrote in the chart that she would not see Thompson again individually without custody staff
nearby because of Thompson’s temper and verbal abuse.
As a mental health counselor, Ms. Keefer’s license does not allow her to prescribe
medications. Therefore, she had no control over what medications Thompson received. It is Ms.
Keefer’s opinion that Thompson’s anxiety never impaired his ability to function. In Ms. Keefer’s
experience, it was nearly impossible to discuss with Thompson his anxiety and anger issues
because of his refusals to do so and his preoccupation with demanding specific medications.
B. Analysis
At all times relevant to Thompson’s claims, he was a convicted offender. Accordingly,
his treatment and the conditions of his confinement are evaluated under standards established by
the Eighth Amendment=s proscription against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993) (“It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner
receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the
Eighth Amendment.”).
Pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, prison officials have a duty to provide humane
conditions of confinement, meaning, they must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety
of the inmates and ensure that they receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). To establish a medical claim that a prison official
has violated the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must demonstrate two elements: (1) an
objectively serious medical condition, and (2) deliberate indifference by the prison official to that
condition. Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 584 (7th Cir. 2006) (overruled on other grounds in
Hill v. Tangherlini, No. 12-3447, 2013 WL 3942935 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2013)).
As to the first element, “[a]n objectively serious medical need is one that has been
diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person
would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.@ King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013,
1018 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation omitted). The defendants argue that Thompson did not
have an objectively serious medical condition. They contend that Thompson has produced no
evidence showing that his anxiety impaired his ability to function. For most of the time relevant
to this action, Thompson did not take any medication for his anxiety and his medical providers
were of the opinion that his symptoms were only moderate. Thompson argues that his anxiety
condition was serious and required treatment. For purposes of this motion, the Court finds that
there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Thompson had a serious medical need.
Therefore, the Court shall consider the second element of Thompson’s claim.
“To show deliberate indifference, [Thompson] must demonstrate that the defendant was
actually aware of a serious medical need but then was deliberately indifferent to it.”@ Knight v.
Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009). “A medical professional’s deliberate indifference
may be inferred when the medical professional’s decision is such a substantial departure from
accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person
responsible did not base the decision on such a judgment.” King, 680 F.3d at 1018-1019 (internal
quotation omitted). “Deliberate indifference is more than negligence and approaches intentional
wrongdoing.” Johnson, 444 F.3d at 585 (internal quotation omitted). “[D]eliberate indifference is
essentially a criminal recklessness standard, that is, ignoring a known risk.” Id. (internal
quotation omitted). “Even gross negligence is below the standard needed to impose
constitutional liability.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).
Thompson argues that the defendants knew that the treatment they offered was not
adequate or effective but refused to change it. Specifically, he disputes Dr. Conant’s
determination that the medication Thompson requested was highly addictive, alleging that he had
taken the medication for years in the past with no signs of addiction or abuse. The pivotal issue
in this case is whether the defendants were deliberately indifferent by not providing the particular
medications that Thompson requested. The only defendant who had the licensing authority to
prescribe medications was the psychiatrist, Dr. Conant.
In response to Thompson’s complaints of anxiety, Dr. Conant used his medical judgment
to offer Thompson certain non-addictive medications. It was Dr. Conant’s professional opinion
that the Valium requested by Thompson was not appropriate for his condition. Thompson
initially refused to take another medication, Trilafon, but later agreed to try it. Thompson began
taking Trilafon in mid-July of 2011, and on July 26, 2011, Dr. Conant increased the dosage.
Thompson had stopped taking the Trilafon by September of 2011. It is Dr. Conant’s opinion that
Thompson did not take the Trilafon long enough to allow it be effective. There is no evidence of
record showing that Dr. Conant’s prescribed treatment was a “substantial departure from
accepted professional judgment,” King, 680 F.3d at 1018-1019, or that prescribing Valium was
necessary for Thompson’s condition.
It is well-settled that while incarcerated, an inmate is not entitled to the best possible care
or to receive a particular treatment of his choice. See Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th
Cir. 1997). It is clear from the entire record that Thompson disagreed with Dr. Conant’s decision
not to prescribe Valium or Xanax, but that does not mean that Dr. Conant acted with deliberate
indifference. See Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2003) (mere disagreement
with medical professionals about one’s needs does not state a claim for deliberate indifference).
Dr. Conant is entitled to summary judgment.
With regard to his claim against psychologist Dr. Khan, Thompson argues that he did not
refuse counseling and that he requested and attended therapy on numerous occasions. He alleges
that he tried to tell Dr. Khan how he was feeling and about how Trilafon made him feel even
worse, but she only told him there was nothing she could do for him. He alleges that Dr. Khan
did not believe him.
The record shows that Dr. Khan first met with Thompson on May 3, 2011, at which time
he was loud and refused to listen to any treatment option other than Valium. He threatened legal
action because Dr. Khan told him that Valium was not prescribed in prison. A couple of weeks
later when Dr. Khan saw Thompson, his behavior was much the same -- loud, argumentative,
and focused on obtaining Valium. On August 23, 2011, Thompson did not show up for his
appointment with Dr. Khan. On September 15, 2011, Dr. Khan saw Thompson but Thompson
would not answer her questions. At this appointment, he complained that he was not receiving
Xanax. Thompson acted in an intimidating manner and would not discuss his anxiety or anger
issues. The final time Dr. Khan saw Thompson in July of 2012, Thompson called her vulgar
names and threatened litigation. As a result, Thompson was written up and placed in segregation.
None of these circumstances point to any deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Khan. Her
attempts to provide counseling were met with abrasive and abusive behavior. Thompson’s
frustration at not being able to obtain Valium or Xanax does not render Dr. Khan deliberately
indifferent. Dr. Khan did not ignore any serious medical need. There is no admissible evidence
supporting Thompson’s allegation that Dr. Khan told him she would not help him. Dr. Khan is
entitled to summary judgment.
As to his claim against Ms. Keefer, Thompson argues that he informed her that he was
not doing well but she did not seem to care. He alleges that he showed Ms. Keefer records of a
“new illness” that he had developed due to anxiety and stress. He alleges that he told Ms. Keefer
that he needed medication because therapy alone was not helping. He reported that the
medications offered by Dr. Conant only made his anxiety worse. He argues that Ms. Keefer did
have some control over what medications he received because she observed him not doing well
and had the responsibility to act. The admissible evidence shows otherwise. That evidence
reflects that Ms. Keefer was a mental health counselor and did not, in fact, have the authority to
prescribe medications or to recommend any particular medication to a psychiatrist. Thompson’s
preoccupation with trying to obtain specific medications prevented Ms. Keefer from engaging
Thompson in effective therapeutic counseling. There is no evidence that Ms. Keefer ignored
Thompson’s complaints or refused to see him when he requested an appointment. There is no
evidence showing that Ms. Keefer was aware of a serious medical need but ignored it or failed to
attempt to provide appropriate counseling. Ms. Keefer is entitled to summary judgment.
With regard to his claim against clinical psychology graduate student Ms. Maxwell,
Thompson argues that he told Ms. Maxwell what medications had been effective for him in the
past but Dr. Conant refused to prescribe them for him. He asserts that Ms. Maxwell told him that
under IDOC policy, tranquilizers such as Xanax were not to be prescribed, but she declined to
give him a copy of the policy. He argues that she was aware of his suffering and that the
treatment offered was not effective and that, therefore, she was deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs.
Ms. Maxwell met with Thompson a number of times from February 1, 2012, until June of
2012. During the time Ms. Maxwell worked with Thompson, she offered him CBT, which has
been used as an effective treatment for individuals with anxiety. It was her opinion that
Thompson suffered more from symptoms of anger at not being prescribed Valium than anxiety.
When Thompson raised concerns about his treatment, she discussed them with Dr. Khan, her
supervisor, but she informed Thompson on numerous occasions that she was not licensed to
prescribe medication. At each appointment, Ms. Maxwell assessed Thompson’s risk of suicidal
or homicidal ideation, and on each occasion, he denied experiencing such thoughts. It was Ms.
Maxell’s observation based on her education and training that Thompson’s anxiety never
presented a serious risk to his own mental or physical health, or a serious risk to others. She
evaluated him using the GAF scale and determined that Thompson had only moderate
symptoms. Contrary to his contentions, Thompson has presented no evidence of Ms. Maxwell
having no concern for his welfare. Rather, the record shows that she was available to provide
him with appropriate therapy, but she could not provide what he apparently wanted most,
Valium. On June 6, 2012, Thompson asked Ms. Maxwell to change his “code” so that it would
reflect his belief that he had no need for mental health treatment. Ms. Maxwell is entitled to
summary judgment.
A court examines the totality of an inmate’s medical care when determining whether
defendants have been deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. Walker v. Peters, 233
F.3d 494, 501 (7th Cir. 2000). Over a period of two years, Thompson was seen by mental health
therapists, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist on a regular basis in an effort to treat his complaints
of anxiety. Thompson is “entitled to reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of serious
harm.” Id. That is what he received.
Even if Thompson had shown negligence or gross negligence on the part of any of the
defendants, which he has not done, that would not be sufficient to survive summary judgment as
to his claims of deliberate indifference. See Lee v. Young, 533 F.3d 505, 509 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“negligence or even gross negligence is not enough; the conduct must be reckless in the
criminal sense”). In addition, there is no evidence that the medical providers’ actions fell below
the applicable standards of care. In sum, all of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment
in their favor.
IV. Conclusion
Thompson’s motion to give ruling [dkt. no 91] is granted. Thompson has not identified a
genuine issue of material fact as to his claims that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious medical needs. Therefore, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment [dkt. nos.
51, 59] must be granted. The plaintiff’s motion to oppose entry of summary judgment [dkt. no.
69] is denied. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
08/26/2013
Date: __________________
_______________________________
Distribution:
All electronically registered counsel
Roger Thompson
#926378
Plainfield Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
727 Moon Road
Plainfield, IN 46168
SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
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?