United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division
TOBY T. MAXWELL, Plaintiff,
CYNTHIA YORK, KIM HOBSEN, BOBBI RIGGS, Defendants.
ORDER DISCUSSING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
JANE MAGNUS-STINSON, CHIEF JUDGE
Toby T. Maxwell, an inmate at New Castle Correctional
Facility, brought this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth
Amendment rights while he was an inmate at Wabash Valley
Correctional Facility (“Wabash Valley”). The
defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 54. Mr. Maxwell
responded and the defendants replied. Dkts. 74 & 79.
Cynthia York withdrew her motion for summary judgment in
recognition of the genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether she provided constitutionally adequate care to Mr.
Maxwell and whether he was harmed as a result.
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants Kim Hobsen
and Bobbi Riggs is now ripe for review. For the reasons
explained in this Order, defendant Kim Hobsen is entitled to
summary judgment and defendant Bobbi Riggs is not entitled to
Summary Judgment Standard
motion for summary judgment asks the Court to find that a
trial is unnecessary because there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and, instead, the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a). As the current version of Rule 56 makes clear, whether
a party asserts that a fact is undisputed or genuinely
disputed, the party must support the asserted fact by citing
to particular parts of the record, including depositions,
documents, or affidavits. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). A party
can also support a fact by showing that the materials cited
do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute
or that the adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence
to support the fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(B). Affidavits or
declarations must be made on personal knowledge, set out
facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the
affiant is competent to testify on matters stated.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4). Failure to properly support a fact in
opposition to a movant's factual assertion can result in
the movant's fact being considered undisputed, and
potentially in the grant of summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P.
deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court need only
consider disputed facts that are material to the decision. A
disputed fact is material if it might affect the outcome of
the suit under the governing law. Williams v.
Brooks, 809 F.3d 936, 941-42 (7th Cir. 2016). “A
genuine dispute as to any material fact exists ‘if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.'” Daugherty v.
Page, 906 F.3d 606, 609-10 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
summary judgment, a party must show the Court what evidence
it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its
version of the events. Gekas v. Vasilades, 814 F.3d
890, 896 (7th Cir. 2016). The moving party is entitled to
summary judgment if no reasonable fact-finder could return a
verdict for the non-moving party. Nelson v. Miller,
570 F.3d 868, 875 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court views the record
in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draws
all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.
Skiba v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 884 F.3d 708, 717
(7th Cir. 2018). It cannot weigh evidence or make credibility
determinations on summary judgment because those tasks are
left to the fact-finder. Miller v. Gonzalez, 761
F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court need only consider
the cited materials, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3), and the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals has repeatedly assured the district
courts that they are not required to “scour every inch
of the record” for evidence that is potentially
relevant to the summary judgment motion before them.
Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University, 870 F.3d
562, 573-74 (7th Cir. 2017). Any doubt as to the existence of
a genuine issue for trial is resolved against the moving
party. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
Saturday, June 25, 2016, Mr. Maxwell was struck on the right
side of his face with a padlock wrapped in a sock, which
fractured his right orbital lobe and injured his right eye.
Dkt. 72-1. Mr. Maxwell was immediately in severe pain that
throbbed and radiated throughout the entire right side of his
head and face. He also experienced immediate swelling at and
around his right eye, which caused that eye to become swollen
Maxwell was seen at the infirmary by defendant Cynthia York.
He told Nurse York he was in extreme pain-ten out of ten-and
could not open his eye. Nurse York's chart for the visit
states that Mr. Maxwell reported to her that “somebody
punched me in the face, ” his pulse was 112
beats/minute, his vital signs were elevated as a result of
the altercation, his right eye was swollen shut, and his
blood vessels were “bursted” [sic] on the right
side of his eye. Dkt. 55-2 at 107-108. Nurse York could not
complete an assessment of Mr. Maxwell's eye because it
was swollen shut. She charted that Mr. Maxwell had
“alteration in comfort” and had “potential
for altered sensory perception.” Mr. Maxwell asked
Nurse York to call the on-call doctor to address his injuries
and prescribe a stronger pain killer than aspirin. Dkt. 72-
1. Nurse York refused to contact the on-call doctor,
instructed Mr. Maxwell to submit a healthcare request,
offered him additional aspirin, provided him an ice pack, and
sent him back to his cell-house. Mr. Maxwell could not sleep
that night. His pain was “constant and
exquisite.” Taking aspirin did not alleviate the pain;
rather, it caused stomach pain. Id.
Sunday, June 26, 2016, Mr. Maxwell submitted a healthcare
request form, stating: “I got hit in the eye with a
lock Saturday night and I have yet to receive any medical
attention. I am and have been in pain and I need to see
someone right away. Thank you!” Dkt. 55-2 at 183
(Excerpt from Plaintiff's Medical Records). The
healthcare request Mr. Maxwell submitted shows a
“received” date of June 28, 2016, two days after
he submitted it. Dkt. 55-2 at 183.
Sunday, June 26, 2016, on three different occasions, a nurse
came to Mr. Maxwell's cell for an insulin shot. All three
times, Mr. Maxwell reported he was in extreme pain. The nurse
provided no treatment, refused to call the on-call doctor,
and told him to submit a healthcare request. Dkt. 72- 1.
Monday, June 27, 2016, Mr. Maxwell spoke to Nurse Knust about
his pain and blurred vision. Nurse Knust responded that she
had been instructed not to give Mr. Maxwell anything for his
pain. Dkt. 72- 1. On that same day, he was moved to a new
housing unit. Upon entering that unit, the floor officer saw
his injury and sent him to the infirmary for medical
treatment. At the front desk of the infirmary, and in Mr.
Maxwell's presence, correctional officer Merritt made
several calls to have a medical staff member render him
assistance. While Mr. Maxwell was still at the front desk of
the Infirmary, officer Merritt received a call back ...