Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Myers v. Gladieux

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division

September 19, 2017

JEFFREY D. MYERS, Plaintiff,



         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is a brittle insulin dependent diabetic. Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Allen County Jail on more than one occasion in 2013, and this lawsuit stems from his complaints regarding the monitoring and treatment of his diabetes during those periods of incarceration.

         Plaintiff takes two types of insulin each day: Humulin R (“HR”), a fast-acting insulin, and Humulin N (“HN”), which works more slowly. Plaintiff's physician, Dr. H Stephen Beyer, submitted an prescription to the jail regarding plaintiff's insulin regimen. That regimen consisted of 15-25 units of HR, with a notation stating “[patient] can decide, ” and 35 units of HN, twice daily, with no notation regarding the patient's ability to use his own discretion. (DE # 55-5 at 5.) However, the treatment logs maintained by the jail indicate that plaintiff was often dosed with HN according to his own request, even if the requested dose did not match Dr. Beyer's prescription. (DE # 62-2 at 1-4.)

         Plaintiff claims that, throughout his incarceration generally, the jail's nursing staff denied him the food trays necessary to managing his diabetes. He also alleges that on July 1, 2013, he was denied glucose testing for six hours, despite repeated requests and reports of low blood sugar to the staff. He claims this denial was perpetrated by “the jail nurse, ” but he does not state the identity of that nurse. (DE # 62 at 2.) He also claims that during a separate incarceration period, on September 8, 2013, a specific nurse, Nurse Hupp, gave him 35 units of HN, despite the fact that plaintiff requested 20 units. Plaintiff alleges that Nurse Hupp was distracted by guards, with whom she was chatting and flirting, when she made this error at around 8 p.m. that evening. The parties do not dispute that around 2:30 a.m., plaintiff's blood sugar plummeted. Plaintiff claims he tried to call for help that night, and that two officers, Officers Dillon and Wiley, ignored his pleas for assistance. According to plaintiff, Officer Dillon also stated that he would “get around to it.” (DE # 61 at 7.) It appears undisputed that plaintiff was treated with glucose tablets and food at 3:00 a.m.

         Plaintiff further alleges that Officer Dillon continued to ignore his requests for assistance with respect to his blood sugar levels on September 18 and 23, 2013. Also, plaintiff alleges that another guard named Officer Runyon interrupted a medical examination on September 23, 2013, by peppering him with questions and comments relating to his condition, such as: “Eat more, ” “Giving food away?”, “Exercising too much?”, “Too much insulin, cut back, ” “Myers, you're killing me. I'm gonna [sic] leave you down here in a cell.” (DE # 61-5.)

         Plaintiff eventually sued the Sheriff of Allen County, along with a number of officers and nurses, alleging negligence and violations of the Eighth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (DE # 31.) Plaintiff later dismissed all “medical malpractice tort/negligence claims” against the nurses. (DE # 47.) The nurses filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking judgment on all claims against them. (DE # 55.) The officers, including the Sheriff of Allen County, did the same. (DE # 57.) Each group of defendants filed a Rule 56 motion to strike. (DE ## 65, 67.) All of the motions are fully briefed, and ready for ruling.


         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery, against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In responding to a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must identify specific facts establishing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986); Palmer v. Marion County, 327 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 2003). In doing so, the non-moving party cannot rest on the pleadings alone, but must present fresh proof in support of its position. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Donovan v. City of Milwaukee, 17 F.3d 944, 947 (7th Cir. 1994). A dispute about a material fact is genuine only “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party, then there is no “genuine” dispute. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

         The court's role in deciding a summary judgment motion is not to evaluate the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50; Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir. 1994). In viewing the facts presented on a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all legitimate inferences and resolve all doubts in favor of that party. NLFC, Inc. v. Devcom Mid-Am., Inc., 45 F.3d 231, 234 (7th Cir. 1995). Importantly, the court is “not required to draw every conceivable inference from the record [in favor of the non-movant]-only those inferences that are reasonable.” Bank Leumi Le-Israel, B.M., v. Lee, 928 F.2d 232, 236 (7th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added).


         A. Nurse's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE # 55)

         All that remains of plaintiff's claims against the nurses is his constitutional claim under Section 1983. Plaintiff's allegations boil down to four types of allegedly unconstitutional mistreatment by the nurses: (1) denial of the food trays necessary to manage his diabetes; (2) denial of glucose for six hours while being kept in a holding cell on July 1, 2013; (3) Nurse Hupp's administration of 35 units of HN to plaintiff on September 8, 2013, when plaintiff had requested 20 units; and (4) denial of treatment in the early morning hours of September 9, 2013, when plaintiff claims he was calling for help during an episode of diabetic shock. As for the first, second, and fourth allegations, plaintiff has failed to identify any particular nurse who wronged him (and the fourth allegation appears to be directed primarily at the officers). In his briefing and affidavit, he uses phrases like “the jail nurse” and “nursing staff” with respect to these allegations, but plaintiff cannot move forward to the trial phase based on allegations against unidentified individuals. Williams v. Rodriguez, 509 F.3d 392, 402 (7th Cir. 2007).

         What is left is plaintiff's allegation regarding Nurse Hupp's administration of 35 units of HN on September 8, 2013, which is really the heart of plaintiff's action. This claim sounds in the Eighth Amendment, which “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.'” Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv.,577 F.3d 816, 828 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976)). Prison officials like Nurse Hupp violate the Constitution if they are deliberately indifferent to prisoners' serious medical needs. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104. Accordingly, a claim based on deficient medical care must demonstrate two elements: (1) an objectively ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.