TEAGUE v. DOE et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying as futile Plaintiff's 30 Motion To Amend Complaint. For these reasons, the plaintiff cannot add the additional defendants to this action. Only the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference policy and practice c laim against CCA identified in this Court's screening entry, Dkt. No. 7 , shall proceed. This defendant has already been served and has appeared in this action. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail) Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 11/30/2017. (JDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

DEXTER RAMONE TEAGUE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA (Marion County Jail II),
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-00890-WTL-MJD

Entry Discussing Motion to Amend Complaint
The plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint, Dkt. No. 30, is denied as futile.
I. The Amended Complaint
In his proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks to add two individual defendants,
Dr. Neil Probst and Nurse Practitioner John Noll, to his pending claim against Corrections
Corporation of America (“CCA”) for allegedly violating his Eighth Amendment right to be free of
cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiff brings his claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He
alleges that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical condition when he was
denied drugs he had previously been prescribed for rheumatoid arthritis. He further alleges that
CCA has a policy and practice of denying Methotrexate and not providing a suitable alternative in
violation of his constitutional rights.
In support of these allegations, the plaintiff states that he spent five to six weeks at CCA in
the summer of 2016. During the intake process into the facility, a nurse threw away his medical
log and told him that CCA did not provide Methotrexate shots. The nurse also told the plaintiff
that the doctor was on vacation. Toward the end of his stay, he was seen by Nurse Practitioner

John Noll who offered to give him a shot of Methotrexate. The plaintiff was concerned about
whether it would be safe to be given a full dose after several weeks without it. Mr. Noll agreed
with the plaintiff’s concerns and said the plaintiff would have to see the doctor to be treated. The
plaintiff was transferred out of CCA before ever having an appointment with Dr. Neil Probst.
II. Discussion of Claims
The plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Neil Probst fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The alleged facts do not support that Dr. Probst was deliberately indifferent to the
plaintiff’s medical condition. Dr. Probst was allegedly on vacation. He never treated the plaintiff.
There are no factual allegations that he was aware of the plaintiff’s medical condition. “A damages
suit under § 1983 requires that a defendant be personally involved in the alleged constitutional
deprivation.” Matz v. Klotka, 769 F.3d 517, 528 (7th Cir. 2014); see Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d
824, 833 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[I]ndividual liability under § 1983 requires ‘personal involvement in
the alleged constitutional deprivation.’”) (citation and quotation mark omitted).
The plaintiff’s claim against Nurse Practitioner John Noll also fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Although Mr. Noll treated the plaintiff, the factual allegations do not
support a claim that he was deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff’s medical condition. To the
contrary, he offered to give the plaintiff a shot of Methotrexate, but after further discussion with
the plaintiff, Mr. Noll agreed that he lacked the medical expertise to treat the plaintiff and
suggested an appointment with a doctor. Although Dr. Neil Probst and Nurse Practitioner John
Noll are not proper defendants in this action, they may be witnesses who could provide information
relevant to the plaintiff’s claim against CCA.

III. Conclusion
For these reasons, the plaintiff cannot add the additional defendants to this action. Only the
plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference policy and practice claim against CCA
identified in this Court’s screening entry, Dkt. No. 7, shall proceed. This defendant has already
been served and has appeared in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/30/17

Distribution:

_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana

William A. Hahn
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]

DEXTER RAMONE TEAGUE
946659
2033 Lewis Drive
Niles, MI 49120