United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
OPINION AND ORDER
L. MILLER, JR. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Brodley, a pro se prisoner, filed a complaint
alleging that a doctor at the Miami Correctional Facility
(“Miami”) is continually withholding his
prescribed diabetic medication, Glipizide, for no
legitimate reason. “A document filed pro se is to be
liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards
than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and
citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. §
1915A, the court must review the merits of a prisoner
complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. “In order to state a claim
under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that
defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right;
and (2) that the defendants acted under color of state
law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th
to the complaint, Mr. Brodley, an inmate at Miami, has been
diagnosed as having diabetes and is prescribed Glipizide to
treat that condition. In September 2016, medical personnel
mistakenly failed to reorder his Glipizide. This caused Mr.
Brodley to file a prison grievance and tort claim. Dr.
Marandet became upset with Mr. Brodley's actions. As a
result, Dr. Marandet has continually upheld giving Glipizide
to Mr. Brodley. As a result of not being able to take
Glipizide as prescribed, Mr. Brodley has suffered dizziness,
blurred vision, blackouts, and is now required to take
insulin injections. Based on these allegations, Mr. Brodley
has brought an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Marandet.
Mr. Brodley seeks money damages and injunctive relief - to
have his Glipizide given to him as prescribed.
the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to adequate
medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). To establish liability, a prisoner must satisfy both
an objective and subjective component by showing: (1) his
medical need was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant
acted with deliberate indifference to that medical need.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). A
medical need is “serious” if it is one that a
physician has diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one that
is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize
the necessity for a doctor's attention. Greeno v.
Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). Deliberate
indifference means that the defendant “acted in an
intentional or criminally reckless manner, i.e., the
defendant must have known that the plaintiff was at serious
risk of being harmed and decided not to do anything to
prevent that harm from occurring even though he could have
easily done so.” Board v. Farnham, 394 F.3d
469, 478 (7th Cir. 2005) (internal citation omitted).
held liable for deliberate indifference to a serious medical
need, a medical professional must make a decision that
represents “such a substantial departure from accepted
professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to
demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base
the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v.
Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). An inmate who
has received some form of treatment for a medical condition
must show that the treatment was “so blatantly
inappropriate as to evidence intentional mistreatment likely
to seriously aggravate his condition.” Id.
is little question that, based on the complaint, Mr. Brodley
suffers from a serious medical need that requires him to take
the prescription medication Glipizide. Mr. Brodley has also
alleged that his Glipizide is continuously being withheld
from him with no legitimate reason, which has caused him
physical harm. Giving him the inferences to which he is
entitled at the pleading stage, Mr. Brodley has alleged
enough to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr.
these reasons, the court:
(1) GRANTS Kevin Brodley leave to proceed on his Eighth
Amendment claim against Dr. Noe Marandet in his individual
capacity for money damages for withholding Glipizide since
(2) GRANTS Kevin Brodley leave to proceed on his Eighth
Amendment claim against Dr. Noe Marandet in his official
capacity for injunctive relief requiring him to administer
Glipizide to Mr. Brodley as prescribed;
(3) DISMISSES all other claims;
(4) DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), to issue and serve
process on Dr. Noe Marandet; and
(5) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that
Dr. Noe Marandet respond, as provided for in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10.1, only to the
claim for which the pro se plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed in this screening order.