Altai Thornton v. Salvador Godinez
17-1473
| 7th Cir. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Thornton, a Menard inmate, was stabbed in the eye on March 19, 2012; he received surgery from ophthalmologist Dr. Ukeme Umana who placed 14 stitches and ordered an MRI two days later.
- Menard medical staff kept Thornton in the health unit; a collegial-review panel approved the MRI and it was scheduled for April 10 (about three weeks after the order) and performed as scheduled; Dr. Umana recommended no further treatment based on results.
- Thornton complained in late April that the MRI had been delayed and that his stitches caused pain; Dr. Umana removed the stitches on May 3 and said Menard doctors could have removed them earlier.
- Thornton sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference by Dr. John Shepherd (Menard physician), Warden Mike Atchison, and IDOC Director Salvador Godinez for delaying the MRI and failing timely to remove stitches; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- The magistrate denied Thornton’s three requests for recruited counsel; Thornton appealed both the summary-judgment and the denial of counsel.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed facts favorably to Thornton but held no reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference by any defendant and upheld the denial of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atchison and Godinez were deliberately indifferent by not ensuring MRI/stitch removal | Atchison and Godinez failed to ensure timely MRI and stitch removal, causing harm | Nonmedical officials may rely on medical staff; they investigated and relied on medical reports | No — reasonable reliance on medical staff; grievance handled and review showed care provided |
| Whether Dr. Shepherd was deliberately indifferent for delaying MRI | Shepherd knew of MRI order/did not act to get MRI scheduled and did not remove stitches | Shepherd did not know of order before March 27, did not schedule outside tests, and had no role in stitch removal | No — no evidence Shepherd knew of or caused delay; MRI was diagnostic and not treatment delayed |
| Whether delay in MRI/stitch removal satisfied subjective Eighth Amendment standard | Delay and pain from stitches amounted to conscious disregard of serious medical need | Actions were at most negligent or administrative; medical staff directed care; no excessive risk shown | No — objective seriousness conceded but no showing of a culpable state of mind by defendants |
| Whether magistrate abused discretion by denying recruited counsel | Thornton lacked means to litigate (transferred, needed expert/witnesses) and was incompetent without counsel | Thornton made some efforts to obtain counsel, filings showed competence; counsel unlikely to change outcome | No — Pruitt factors considered, Thornton competent to litigate, and lack of counsel did not prejudice case |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective standard for deliberate indifference)
- Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763 (Seventh Circuit on summary-judgment review and deliberate indifference)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (objective and subjective components of Eighth Amendment medical claims)
- Collignon v. Milwaukee Cty., 163 F.3d 982 (deliberate indifference higher than negligence)
- Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001 (nonmedical officials may reasonably rely on medical staff)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (summary judgment for doctor who transferred care to others)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (standards for recruiting counsel for indigent prisoners)
- Junior v. Anderson, 724 F.3d 812 (transfer as factor in counsel recruitment)
- Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (limits on prisoner investigations post-transfer)
- James v. Eli, 846 F.3d 951 (expert testimony often required in deliberate-indifference cases)
- Williams v. Werlinger, 795 F.3d 759 (Marshals’ role in serving process for indigent prisoner plaintiffs)