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.

Maxwell v. York

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division

July 23, 2019

TOBY T. MAXWELL, Plaintiff,



         Plaintiff 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.

         Defendant 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.

         The 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.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         A 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. 56(e).

         In 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 (1986)).

         On 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.

         II. Factual Background

         On 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 shut.

         Mr. 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.

         On 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.

         Also on 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.

         On 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 ...

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.