United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division
BRODERICK V. BULLOCK, SR., Plaintiff,
NOE MARANDET, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
V. Bullock, Sr., a prisoner without a lawyer, filed an
amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction.
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).
Nevertheless, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, this court
must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief. “In order to state a claim under [42 U.S.C.]
§ 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 Cir. 2006).
complaint, Bullock alleges that he received treatment for an
ankle fracture from Dr. Mullis at Eskenazi Health before he
arrived at the Miami Correctional Facility in January 2018.
However, medical staff at the prison have not followed the
instructions he received from Eskenazi Health. For example,
Kim Myers prevented him from obtaining Ultram as prescribed
by Dr. Mullis. Dr. Marandet prescribed him anti-inflammatory
medication instead of Ultram. Lynn Frye prevented him from
attending his follow up appointments with Eskenazi Health.
Warden Hyatt left an elevator unrepaired for two months,
which forced Bullock to climb stairs on his fractured ankle
against Dr. Mullis' instructions. For his claims, Bullock
seeks money damages.
asserts Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference
against Dr. Marandet, Lynn Frye, Warden Hyatt, and Kim Myers
for not following Dr. Mullis' medical instructions. Under
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).
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). Though these defendants may have
had valid reasons for their conduct, Bullock states a
plausible Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference
to serious medical needs against them.
also names Bobbi Witham as a defendant, alleging that she
interfered with previously ordered treatment. However,
Bullock offers no further context as to how Witham violated
his constitutional rights, including the type of previously
ordered treatment at issue or a description of how she
interfered with it. Similarly, Bullock names Nurse Lisa as a
defendant, alleging that she refused to diagnose and treat
his injuries, but he offers no details regarding his injuries
or the circumstances of her refusal to address them. Because
these allegations are too vague to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, Bullock cannot proceed against these
defendants, and they are dismissed. Additionally, the
electronic docket includes Nurse OSB II as a defendant.
Though the amended complaint lists Nurse OSB II as a
defendant, it appears that this name refers to Nurse Lisa
rather than another individual. Therefore, Nurse OSB II is
motion for a preliminary injunction, Bullock seeks an
appointment with Dr. Mullis at Eskenazi Health. Because the
Prison Litigation Reform Act limits the court's authority
to grant injunctive relief in this case, the injunctive
relief, if granted, will be limited to requiring correctional
officials to provide medical treatment for the ankle fracture
as required by the Eighth Amendment. See Westefer v.
Neal, 682 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2012). Further, William
Hyatt, as the warden of the Miami Correctional Facility, has
both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that
Bullock receives the medical treatment to which he is
entitled under the Eighth Amendment. See Gonzalez v.
Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 315 (7th Cir. 2011). Therefore,
William Hyatt is the proper party to respond to the motion
for a preliminary injunction.
these reasons, the court:
GRANTS Broderick V. Bullock, Sr., leave to proceed on an
Eighth Amendment claim for damages against Dr. Marandet, Lynn
Frye, Warden Hyatt, and Kim Myers for not following Dr.
Mullis' instructions in relation to an ankle fracture;
DISMISSES Nurse OSB II, Bobbi Witham, and Nurse Lisa;
DISMISSES all other claims;
DIRECTS the clerk and the United States Marshals Service to
issue and serve process on Dr. Marandet, Lynn Frye, Warden
Hyatt, and Kim Myers at the Indiana Department of Correction
with a copy of this order, the amended complaint (ECF 16),
and the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF 19) as
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);
ORDERS Warden Hyatt to respond to the motion for preliminary
injunction (ECF 19) by July 19, 2019; and
ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), Dr.
Marandet, Lynn Frye, Warden Hyatt, and Kim Myers to respond,
as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which
Broderick V. ...