Davis v. Doheling
ORDER signed by Judge Pamela Pepper on 10/10/2017. Defendant to file responsive pleading to amended complaint within 60 days. Parties may not begin discovery until the court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Warden and Chad Davis at Redgranite Correctional Institution)(cb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case No. 17-cv-256-pp
ORDER SCREENING PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
In its July 25, 2017 order, the court screened the plaintiff’s complaint,
and directed him to file an amended complaint because he had not made
allegations of personal involvement by defendant Lori Doheling. Dkt. No. 3. The
plaintiff filed that amended complaint, which the court now screens under 28
The plaintiff’s claims once again implicate his Eighth Amendment right to
adequate medical care. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir.
2011) (quoting Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 828
(7th Cir. 2009) (“The Eighth Amendment safeguards the prisoner against a lack
of medical care that ‘may result in pain and suffering which no one suggests
would serve any penological purpose.’”). This time, however, he has provided
details regarding Doheling’s personal involvement in his medical treatment.
Doheling is employed by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections as the
Health Services director at Redgranite Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 4 at 1.
The plaintiff wrote to Doheling on October 19 or 20, 2016, and explained
that he was in severe pain and wanted an MRI or an appointment with a
podiatrist. Dkt. No. 4 at 3. Doheling responded to the plaintiff’s correspondence
without examining him. Id. at 3-4. She indicated that she had reviewed his
medical records and that there was nothing describing foot problems. Id. at 4.
On March 17, 2017, the plaintiff again wrote to Doheling, indicating that
he had seen an off-site specialist who recommended a thicker mattress and
specific pain relief medications. Id. The plaintiff told Doheling that he had not
received either of the things recommended by the specialist. Id. Doheling
informed the plaintiff that the specialist’s orders were “mere
recommendations,” accused him of asking for a thicker mattress, and told him
that doctors could not go straight to the recommended pain reliever. Id.
The plaintiff was scheduled for a follow-up appointment with the
podiatrist, but he asserts he never was taken to the appointment. Id. He also
requested an MRI on numerous occasions and, when an MRI finally revealed
problems with the plaintiff’s spine, he received no follow-up. Id. The plaintiff’s
back and leg pain persists, but he has no diagnosis other than complications
with his spine. Id. Although the podiatrist recommended soft insoles, the
plaintiff still has the previously provided hard insoles. Id.
At this early stage in the litigation, viewing the plaintiff’s assertions in
the light most favorable to him, the court finds that the plaintiff’s amended
complaint states an Eighth Amendment claim that Doheling was deliberately
indifferent to the plaintiff’s serious medical needs.
The court ORDERS that, under an informal service agreement between
the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, copies of the plaintiff’s
complaint and this order are being electronically sent to the Wisconsin
Department of Justice for service on state defendant Lori Doheling.
The court also ORDERS that, pursuant to the informal service agreement
between the Wisconsin Department of Justice and this court, the defendant
shall file a responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty days of receiving
electronic notice of this order.
The court ORDERS that the parties may not begin discovery until after
the court enters a scheduling order setting deadlines for discovery and
The court ORDERS that the plaintiff shall submit all correspondence and
legal material to:
Office of the Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District of Wisconsin
362 United States Courthouse
517 E. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
PLEASE DO NOT MAIL ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO THE COURT’S CHAMBERS.
It will only delay the processing of the case. Because the clerk will electronically
scan and enter on the docket each filing electronically received, the plaintiff
need not mail copies to the defendant. The defendant will be served
electronically through the court’s electronic case filing system. The plaintiff
should keep a personal copy of each document he files with the court. The
court advises the plaintiff that if he does not file documents by the deadlines
the court (or the rules) set, the court may dismiss his case for failure to
prosecute. The parties must notify the Clerk of Court of any change of address.
Failure to do so could result in orders or other information not being timely
delivered, thus affecting the legal rights of the parties.
The court will send a copy of this order to the warden of the institution
where the inmate is confined.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 10th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
United States District Judge
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?