Jones v. Eckstein et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/11/2018: GRANTING 36 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Kurtis D. Jones) (jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
KURTIS D. JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMUEL MENNING, JACOB
HEFFERNAN, MICHAEL
DEDERING, JOSEPH SPENCER,
JENNIFER HARRIS-FORBES,
SAMANTHA SCHWARTZ-OSCAR,
LT. ANDREW WICKMAN, LT.
REBECCA LENZ, LT. DANIEL
CUSHING, JOSEPH BONNIN, and
JOHN LANNOYE,

Case No. 17-CV-1316-JPS

ORDER

Defendants.
1.

INTRODUCTION
On November 20, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint.

(Docket #8). The complaint alleged that Defendants, correctional and
medical staff at Green Bay Correctional Institution, failed to respond
appropriately to Plaintiff’s various acts of self-harm from May 9 to May 14,
2017 while he was incarcerated there. (Docket #8 at 3). Plaintiff was allowed
to proceed on a claim of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs,
namely his risk of suicide, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against
each Defendant. Id. at 5.
On May 1, 2018, Defendants moved for summary judgment. (Docket
#36). Plaintiff’s response to the motion was due on or before May 31, 2018.
Civ. L. R. 7(b). That deadline has passed and no response has been received.

The Court could summarily grant Defendants’ motion in light of Plaintiff’s
non-opposition. Civ. L. R. 7(d). However, as explained below, Defendants
also present valid bases for dismissing Plaintiff’s claim. For both of these
reasons, Defendants’ motion must be granted.
2.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the court “shall

grant summary judgment 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); see Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910, 916 (7th
Cir. 2016). A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit”
under the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 248 (1986). A dispute of fact is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a
reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. The
court construes all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the non-movant. Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Inc., 815 F.3d
356, 360 (7th Cir. 2016).
3.

BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are undisputed because Plaintiff failed to dispute

them. In the Court’s scheduling order, entered December 4, 2017, Plaintiff
was warned about the requirements for opposing a motion for summary
judgment. (Docket #13 at 3). Accompanying that order were copies of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Civil Local Rule 56, both of which
describe in detail the form and contents of a proper summary judgment
submission. In Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, they too
warned Plaintiff about the requirements for his response as set forth in
Federal and Local Rules 56. (Docket #36). He was provided with additional
copies of those Rules along with Defendant’s motion. Id. at 3–12. In
Page 2 of 6

connection with their motion, Defendants filed a supporting statement of
material facts that complied with the applicable procedural rules. (Docket
#43). It contained short, numbered paragraphs concisely stating those facts
which Defendants proposed to be beyond dispute, with supporting
citations to the attached evidentiary materials. See id.
In response, Plaintiff filed absolutely nothing—no brief in
opposition, much less a response to the statement of facts.1 Despite being
twice warned of the strictures of summary judgment procedure, Plaintiff
ignored those rules by failing to properly dispute Defendants’ proffered
facts with citations to relevant, admissible evidence. Smith v. Lamz, 321 F.3d
680, 683 (7th Cir. 2003). Though the Court is required to liberally construe a
pro se plaintiff’s filings, it cannot act as his lawyer, and it cannot delve
through the record to find favorable evidence for him. Thus, the Court will,
unless otherwise stated, deem Defendants’ facts undisputed for purposes
of deciding his motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Civ.
L. R. 56(b)(4); Hill v. Thalacker, 210 F. App’x 513, 515 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting
that district courts have discretion to enforce procedural rules against pro se
litigants).
In the absence of any factual disputes, and in the interest of brevity,
the Court will discuss the material facts as part of its analysis of Plaintiff’s
claim. All factual discussion is drawn from Defendants’ statement of
proposed facts. (Docket #43).

The last filing the Court received from Plaintiff was a notice that his
address had changed. (Docket #35). Defendants mailed their summary judgment
materials to both his new and old addresses. (Docket #36-1).
1

Page 3 of 6

4.

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff generally alleges that he used various sharp metal objects to

harm himself, and that Defendants’ responses to that behavior violated his
constitutional rights. See (Docket #1 at 4–9). Plaintiff’s allegations implicate
his Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care. Prison officials
violate that right if they exhibit deliberate indifference to an inmate’s
serious medical needs. Orlowski v. Milwaukee Cnty., 872 F.3d 417, 422 (7th
Cir. 2017). To show deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must prove that “(1)
[he] had an objectively serious medical condition; (2) the defendants knew
of the condition and were deliberately indifferent to treating [him]; and (3)
this indifference caused [him] some injury.” Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610,
620 (7th Cir. 2010).
Normally, a completed or attempted suicide satisfies the “serious
medical condition” element. Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. Cnty. of Madison, Ill.,
746 F.3d 766, 775 (7th Cir. 2014). However, a plaintiff still bears the burden
to show that their suicidal ideation or the self-harm they inflicted was
indeed “objectively [and] sufficiently” serious. Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d
757, 760 (7th Cir. 2006). Prison officials’ refusal to treat “the sniffles or minor
aches and pains or a tiny scratch or a mild headache or minor fatigue—the
sorts of ailments for which many people who are not in prison do not seek
medical attention,” does not violate the Eighth Amendment. Cooper v.
Casey, 97 F.3d 914, 916 (7th Cir. 1996).
The undisputed facts demonstrate that Plaintiff did not have a
serious medical need, either in suicidal ideation or in his self-inflicted
wounds. Over the six days in question, Plaintiff used tiny pieces of metal or
other small sharp objects to create exceedingly minor wounds. Most were
so small that they did not bleed or produced a trickle of blood. Some did
Page 4 of 6

not even break the skin. At his deposition, Plaintiff admitted that the
wounds were not very serious. The lacerations either healed on their own
or were treated with disinfectant and a bandage. Plaintiff was not
hospitalized for his injuries.
The conclusion that Plaintiff’s suicidal ideation was not serious is
supported by his prior prison conduct and his own testimony about the
facts of this case. Plaintiff was a troublesome inmate who received
numerous serious conduct reports. He has a history of threatening staff
members, assaulting staff, and lying to them. Plaintiff also has a record of
cutting himself to achieve secondary gain—to get prison staff to move him
or give him some other form of special treatment. As for the events of May
2017, Plaintiff admits that his goal was not suicide. Instead, at certain times,
he wanted to be moved to a quiet, isolated room away from other loud
inmates. At other points, he was simply displeased with something, such
as having a custody hearing go poorly or being refused a transfer to a
different prison.
Plaintiff’s conduct does not rise to the level of an objectively serious
medical condition. Rather, it produced minor cuts that needed, at most, the
most basic first aid treatment. Plaintiff’s behavior was also consistent with
his history of claiming suicidal thoughts, or engaging in minor cutting
incidents, in order to get what he wanted from prison staff. Because the first
element of Plaintiff’s claim is indisputably disproven, each of the
Defendants are entitled to judgment in their favor.2

Defendants further assert, assuming arguendo that Plaintiff presented a
serious medical need, that he did not pose a genuine risk of imminent and serious
self-harm. (Docket #37 at 21–24). Defendants also contend that they appropriately
responded to his behavior, and in any event were well short of being deliberately
indifferent to it. (Docket #37 at 24–37). In light of Plaintiff’s failure to create a jury
2

Page 5 of 6

5.

CONCLUSION
On the undisputed facts presented, summary judgment is

appropriate in Defendants’ favor on Plaintiff’s claim against them. The
Court must, therefore, grant Defendants’ motion and dismiss this action
with prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
(Docket #36) be and the same is hereby GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 11th day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________
J. P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

question on the first element of his deliberate indifference claim, the Court need
not analyze these arguments.

Page 6 of 6