Danny Richards v. Wexford of Indiana LLC
20-2567
| 7th Cir. | Oct 20, 2021Background
- Danny Richards, an Indiana inmate, sought care for diabetes and ulcerative colitis while at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility; Corizon provided care until March 2017, then Wexford took over.
- Dr. Jackie West‑Denning treated Richards beginning December 2017: she ordered insulin for high blood sugar, counseled him about injection side effects, increased dose when sugars remained high, then stopped injections for noncompliance after several months; his diabetes later stabilized.
- For rectal pain/ulcerative colitis, West‑Denning discontinued gabapentin, prescribed anti‑inflammatories (sulfasalazine), suppositories, creams, steroids, and later oxcarbazepine; she explained formulary/abuse concerns as reasons for medication choices.
- In February 2018 West‑Denning performed a rectal exam in a cramped, allegedly filthy room with officers present and with other officers/inmates able to see through a window; Richards requested privacy/cleaning and alleges the doctor responded by saying he had "lost his right to privacy and cleanliness when he came to prison."
- Richards filed grievances that were not sustained, then sued three doctors, Corizon, and Wexford under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference and an unconstitutional cost‑saving medication policy; the district court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment on most claims but vacated and remanded the Eighth Amendment claim about the manner of the rectal exam as a triable issue of humiliation/torment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rectal exam was done in a humiliating, Eighth Amendment‑violative manner | Richards: exam gratuitously exposed him, room filthy, privacy denied, doctor made demeaning comments | Defendants: exam was medically necessary; event not pled but litigated; no constitutional violation | Vacated summary judgment; genuine dispute exists whether conduct was gratuitously humiliating and triable under Eighth Amendment |
| Whether West‑Denning was deliberately indifferent to insulin injection pain | Richards: continued injections despite reported painful side effects | West‑Denning: medically justified to treat high glucose, counseled about transient side effects, adjusted dosing; diabetes improved | Affirmed for defendant; no evidence of reckless disregard or departure from professional judgment |
| Whether refusal/delay to prescribe gabapentin amounted to deliberate indifference | Richards: needed gabapentin for nerve pain; delay caused ongoing pain | West‑Denning: followed DOC restrictions and clinical judgment; tried alternative treatments and later prescribed another anticonvulsant | Affirmed for defendant; reasonable medical judgment and difference of opinion not deliberate indifference |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies against Drs. Byrd, Chavez, and Corizon | Richards: grievances addressed medical problems generally | Defendants: grievances were untimely, didn't mention these defendants or incidents while Corizon provided care | Affirmed for defendants; grievances failed to provide required notice and were not filed within required timeframe |
| Monell claim against Wexford (policy of cost‑saving over effective treatment) | Richards: Wexford prioritized cheaper meds (e.g., gabapentin policy) causing inadequate care | Wexford: no evidentiary support for a cost‑driven unconstitutional policy | Affirmed for defendant; no evidence of a policy or causation beyond speculation |
| Denial of recruitment of counsel | Richards: needed counsel to litigate effectively | Defendants/district court: Richards competent to litigate; he did not show independent efforts to find counsel | Affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion under Pruitt framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Eighth Amendment bars calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs)
- Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2009) (strip‑searches may violate Eighth Amendment when executed to humiliate)
- Washington v. Hively, 695 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2012) (search‑related touching intended to humiliate can support Eighth Amendment claim)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard: subjective knowledge and reckless disregard)
- Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (administrative exhaustion requires compliance with prison grievance rules)
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires official policy or custom causing constitutional violation)
- Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2019) (disagreement among professionals is not deliberate indifference)
- Beal v. Foster, 803 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2015) (isolated unprofessional comments alone generally do not state an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (factors for recruiting counsel in prisoner civil suits)
- Torry v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 399 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2005) (claims may be treated as litigated by implied consent when parties address them on the merits)