Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Pritt v. McCreary

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

December 6, 2019

STEVEN W. PRITT, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC MCCREARY, et al. Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

          SARAH EVANS BARKER, JUDGE

         Plaintiff Steven Pritt, an Indiana inmate, brought this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that when he was confined at the Marion County Jail, he was subjected to assault by another inmate, endured unconstitutional conditions of confinement, and denied medical care. Specifically, Mr. Pritt alleges that Deputy Eric McCreary provoked another inmate to fling urine and feces on him. He also alleges that the urine and feces caused an infestation of cockroaches in his cell. He asked for medical attention and a shower, but did not receive either. He sues Deputy McCreary, Sergeant Mullins, and Sergeant Gephart of the Marion County Jail. His claims are: (1) the defendants failed to protect him from harm in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights when Deputy McCreary prompted the other inmate to assault him with bodily waste; (2) all defendants exhibited deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs when they did not allow him a shower or medical attention; and (3) the conditions of his confinement were unconstitutional.

         The defendants seek partial summary judgment on these claims. First, they argue that Mr. Pritt's Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to medical care claim must fail because Mr. Pritt cannot show that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. They further argue that Mr. Pritt cannot show that defendants Mullins and Gephart failed to protect him from harm because he does not allege that they were present on the day of the alleged assault.

         I. Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine disputes of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A court must grant a motion for summary judgment if it appears that no reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of the nonmovant based on the designated admissible evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). 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 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).

         II. Statement of Facts

         The following statement of facts has been evaluated based on the standard set forth above. That is, the statement of facts is not necessarily objectively true, but the undisputed facts and the disputed evidence are presented in the light most favorable to Mr. Pritt as the non-moving party.

         From July 9, through July 22, 2016, Mr. Pritt was housed at the Marion County Jail as he awaited a hearing for his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief. Dkt. 79-1, p. 21. Around July 14 or 15, 2016, Mr. Pritt requested to be moved to suicide watch and was placed in a cell next to Ramsey Brewer. Id., p. 8. On or around July 16, 2016, Deputy Eric McCreary was passing out food trays. Id., p. 14. Deputy McCreary gave Mr. Pritt a tray that looked like it had blood on it. Id., pp. 14-15. 5. Mr. Pritt returned the tray to Deputy McCreary because of the apparent blood. Id., p. 15. Deputy McCreary then showed the tray to Mr. Brewer and asked him how he got his blood on Mr. Pritt's food tray. Id. Mr. Brewer then took a cup and scooped urine and feces out of his toilet, reached outside of his cell, and flung it on Mr. Pritt. Id. Mr. Brewer flung urine or feces three or four times at Mr. Pritt. Id. Mr. Pritt asked Deputy McCreary for a shower and medical attention, but he did not get a shower and medical attention. Id., p. 16. Mr. Pritt's cell then became infested with cockroaches. Id. p. 17. The cockroaches bit or gnawed on Mr. Pritt. Id. The next day, Mr. Pritt told medical personnel that he needed medical attention. Id., p. 16. Nurses make rounds through the suicide watch block two to three times per day to pass out medications. Id., p. 25. The nurses saw that Mr. Pritt had “infected cockroach bites” but did not do anything about them. Id., p. 18. A mental health professional makes rounds through the suicide block at least once per day. Id., p. 22. Between July 16 and 22, Mr. Pritt told these medical professionals that he needed a shower and medical attention, however they did not honor his requests. Id., p. 16. Mr. Pritt asked Deputy McCreary for medical assistance and asked for medical request forms. Dkt. 79-2, ¶ 7.

         On July 20, 2016, Sgt. Gephart, and Sgt. Mullins entered the suicide block and Mr. Pritt told them he needed a shower and medical attention. Dkt. 79-2, ¶ 9. He was told to fill out a medical request, but they did not provide him with the form to do so. Dkt. 79-2, ¶ 9-10. Sgt. Gephart and Sgt. Mullins were not present at the alleged July 16, 2016 incident. See dkt. 79-2, ¶¶ 1-8. On or about July 22, 2016, Mr. Pritt was taken back to New Castle Correctional Facility. Dkt. 79-1, p. 43. The cockroach bites were the size of pencil lead, raw in the center, raised up and red around the edges. Id., p. 41. Mr. Pritt has not been tested for infection. Id., p. 51. Mr. Pritt has no remaining visible physical marks from the cockroach bites. Id., p. 41.

         III. Discussion

         The defendants move for partial summary judgment arguing that they were not deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and that defendants Sgt. Gephart and Sgt. Mullins were not present on the day that Mr. Brewer assaulted Mr. Pritt.

         A. Deliberate Indifference

         The defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on Mr. Pritt's claims that they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

         At all times relevant to Mr. Pritt's claims, he was a convicted inmate. Accordingly, his treatment and the conditions of his confinement are evaluated under standards established by the Eighth Amendment's proscription against the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. See Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 31 (1993) (“It is undisputed that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment.”). To establish an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, “the plaintiff must prove that he suffered from ‘(1) an objectively serious medical ...


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.