Fields, Mafayette v. Deyoung, K. et al

Filing 97

ORDER granting plaintiff Mafayette Fields's motion to amend his complaint, Dkt. 48 . His amended complaint, Dkt. 49 , is the operative pleading. The clerk of court is directed to add defendants Dr. Tannan, Betty Katzur, Nancy Bowens, Terry M urphy, and Jean Patenaude to the caption. The state may have until July 9, 2018, to inform the court whether it intends to represent the newly added defendants, and if the state is representing them, to file an amended answer on their behalf. Fie lds is GRANTED leave to proceed on the following claims: Eighth Amendment individual-capacity claims against defendants Syed, Newbery, Deyoung, Morgan, Frye, Greer, Holzmacher, Muse, Litscher, Mashak, Dittman, Tannan, Katzur, Bowens, Murphy, and Pate naude. Eighth Amendment official-capacity claims against defendants Greer, Holzmacher, Muse, Litscher, Mashak, and Dittman. Plaintiff's motion to supplement his materials in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment, Dkt. [83 ], is GRANTED. Defendants' motion to stay the schedule, Dkt. 96 , is GRANTED. The schedule is amended as as follows:Dispositive motions deadline: August 17, 2018Discovery cutoff: October 29, 2018Final pretrial submissions and disclosures: November 5, 2018Pretrial submission responses: November 19, 2018Final pretrial conference: December 3, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. Trial: December 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 6/19/2018. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MAFAYETTE FIELDS,
Plaintiff,
v.
K. DEYOUNG, KERI NEWBURY,
UNIT MANAGER FRYE, CAPTAIN MORGAN,
HSU MANAGER MASHAK, DR. SYED,
M. DITTMAN, JON LITSCHER, JAMES GREER,
RYAN HOLZMACHER, and MARY MUSE,

ORDER
16-cv-405-jdp

Defendants.
In this lawsuit, plaintiff Mafayette Fields alleges that prison officials improperly treated
his foot problems by choosing ineffective treatment and by rejecting a doctor’s prescribed
accommodation for “soft top” shoes. Fields’s claims concern his treatment by defendant
Dr. Syed and the Special Needs Committee at the Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI).
In particular, he alleges that the Department of Corrections maintains a Special Needs
Committee policy allowing non-medical personnel to thwart the treatment recommendations
of doctors. This order address several matters.
A. Motion to amend complaint
Fields was transferred to the Oshkosh Correctional Institution (OCI) during the
pendency of this case. He has filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint, Dkt. 48, along
with a proposed amended complaint, Dkt. 49, in which he seeks to raise claims about his
treatment at OCI similar to those involving his time at CCI. He alleges that proposed new
defendant Dr. Tannan forced him to use boots that he complained did not help with his pain,
and that Tannan did not send him to see a specialist. He also alleges that defendants Betty

Katzur, Nancy Bowens, Terry Murphy, and Jean Patenaude served on the Special Needs
Committee at OCI that denied him a lower bunk even though it was prescribed by Tannan. As
with his CCI claims, I conclude that Fields states potential Eighth Amendment claims against
Tannan for failing to provide him with adequate treatment, and against the Special Needs
Committee defendants for ignoring the doctor’s suggested treatment. He is already bringing
official-capacity claims against high-level DOC officials about the Special Needs Committee’s
policy allowing non-medical personnel to thwart the treatment recommendations of doctors,
and his new allegations support those claims as well.
The state opposes Fields’s proposed amendment, stating that Fields could not have
exhausted his OCI claims before filing his original complaint in this lawsuit. But this argument
is undeveloped and does not address two possible exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine: the
OCI claims might be considered part of continuing constitutional violations, see Turley v.
Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 650 (7th Cir. 2013) (“prisoners need not file multiple, successive
grievances raising the same issue . . . if the objectionable condition is continuing”), and the
court of appeals has suggested that there is an exception for claims that are discovered after the
filing of the original complaint, see Barnes v. Briley, 420 F.3d 673, 678 (7th Cir. 2005) (allowing
a plaintiff to proceed on an amended complaint where plaintiff exhausted remedies after filing
suit on new claims whose factual predicate was discovered after the original complaint was
filed); Cannon v. Washington, 418 F.3d 714, 719–720 (7th Cir. 2005) (concluding that an
inmate may amend his complaint to include claims that were not exhausted at the time that
the original complaint was filed but that are exhausted by the time that an amended complaint
is filed) (per curiam). So I will allow Fields to amend his complaint to include his OCI claims.

2

Defendants are free to raise a detailed exhaustion argument in a supplement to their previously
filed motion for summary judgment.1 I will set a new dispositive motions deadline below.
Fields also appears to be attempting to bring claims against the prison officials who
shared his medical information with non-medical Special Needs Committee members. But I
have previously concluded that these types of allegations do not support a viable claim under
federal law, so I will not grant Fields leave to proceed on this set of claims. See, e.g., Tyler v.
Wick, No. 14-cv-68-jdp, 2015 WL 1486506, at *7 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 31, 2015) (In his
complaint, plaintiff cites the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act . . . but he
cannot bring such a claim because HIPAA does not create a private cause of action or an
enforceable right for purposes of a federal lawsuit.”).
B. Preliminary injunction
Fields has filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, Dkt. 20, seeking an order
directing the state to arrange for an examination by a podiatrist and a prescription for more
comfortable shoes.
A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that should be
granted only when the movant carries the burden of persuasion by a “clear showing.” Boucher
v. Sch. Bd. of the Sch. Dist. of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 823 (7th Cir. 1998) (quoting Mazurek v.
Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997)). To obtain injunctive relief, Fields must show that (1) he
will suffer irreparable harm before the final resolution of his claim without a preliminary
injunction; (2) traditional legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) his claims has some likelihood

1

Fields filed materials opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and also filed a
“motion to supplement” those filings with minor amendments to three of the pages of his brief,
and an additional exhibit. I will grant that motion.

3

of success on the merits. BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 323–24 (7th Cir. 2015). If
Fields makes this showing, he must further demonstrate that the balance of harms tips in his
favor and that the public interest favors the injunctive relief. Id.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act limits the scope of preliminary injunctive relief in
cases challenging prison conditions. Under the PLRA, the injunctive relief to remedy prison
conditions must be “narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm the
court finds requires preliminary relief, and be the least intrusive means necessary to correct
that harm.” 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2); see also Westefer v. Neal, 682 F.3d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 2012).
The PLRA also requires the court to “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public
safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” Section
3626.
I will deny Fields’s motion because he fails to show a likelihood of success on his claims
about his current place of incarceration. His proposed findings of fact focus on events that
occurred while he was incarcerated at CCI. In particular, he provides a declaration from another
inmate stating that defendant Nurse DeYoung told him that she would never approve any
footwear request made to the Special Needs Committee. This is evidence supporting Fields’s
claim against DeYoung, but there is no evidence suggesting that she is involved in any medical
or Special Needs Committee decisions at OCI, where Fields is currently incarcerated. The
materials provided by defendants show that Fields continues to be seen for treatment by
defendant Tannan and others when he submits health service requests. And Fields does not
present any evidence showing deliberate indifference on the part of the Special Needs
Committee at OCI. So I will not take the relatively drastic step of intervening in his current
medical treatment.

4

C. Remaining schedule
The current schedule does not leave the parties with enough time to supplement their
summary judgment motions with materials regarding Fields’s new OCI claims. In addition,
defendants have filed a motion to stay the schedule. Dkt. 96. I will strike the current schedule
and set a new one as follows:
Dispositive motions deadline: August 17, 2018
Discovery cutoff: October 29, 2018
Final pretrial submissions and disclosures: November 5, 2018
Pretrial submission responses: November 19, 2018
Final pretrial conference: December 3, 2018, at 8:30 a.m.
Trial: December 3, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff Mafayette Fields’s motion to amend his complaint, Dkt. 48, is GRANTED.
His amended complaint, Dkt. 49, is the operative pleading.
2. The clerk of court is directed to add defendants Dr. Tannan, Betty Katzur, Nancy
Bowens, Terry Murphy, and Jean Patenaude to the caption.
3. The state may have until July 9, 2018, to inform the court whether it intends to
represent the newly added defendants, and if the state is representing them, to file
an amended answer on their behalf.
4. Fields is GRANTED leave to proceed on the following claims:


Eighth Amendment individual-capacity claims against defendants Syed,
Newbery, Deyoung, Morgan, Frye, Greer, Holzmacher, Muse, Litscher,
Mashak, Dittman, Tannan, Katzur, Bowens, Murphy, and Patenaude.



Eighth Amendment official-capacity claims against defendants Greer,
Holzmacher, Muse, Litscher, Mashak, and Dittman.

5

5. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his materials in opposition to defendants’ motion
for summary judgment, Dkt. 83, is GRANTED.
6. Defendants’ motion to stay the schedule, Dkt. 96, is GRANTED.
7. The schedule is amended as detailed above.
Entered June 19, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

6