DEDRICK v. FLOYD COUNTY JAIL, 4:24-cv-00088

Shawn Dedrick, while detained at Floyd County Jail (FCJ), alleges that Captain Perrot ignored requests from Dedrick’s power of attorney for additional medical treatment and assistive devices (cane or walker) due to Dedrick’s mobility issues.
Dedrick claims he was deprived of necessary mobility assistance for over 120 days, which caused him substantial difficulty and pain.
The district court previously allowed Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment medical care claims against Capt. Perrot to proceed past screening.
Capt. Perrot moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing that Dedrick did not plead an objectively serious medical condition.
Dedrick, proceeding pro se, did not explicitly name any diagnosed condition but described severe difficulty walking and lack of access to his cane or a walker.
The court now decides whether Dedrick’s complaint adequately alleges a serious medical need and deliberate indifference.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Failure to state claim for serious medical need	Alleged severe mobility issues, need for cane, pain and inability to walk unaided	Dedrick did not plead an objectively serious medical condition	Complaint sufficiently alleges an objectively serious medical need
Effect of no response to motion	N/A (no response filed)	Lack of response concedes dismissal is proper	Unopposed motions cannot be granted solely due to no response
Standard for pro se pleadings	Pro se pleadings should be liberally construed	N/A	Complaint construed liberally and not held to lawyer’s standards
Sufficiency of facts in complaint	Articulated facts of mobility impairment and lack of assistance	Did not set forth specific diagnosis	Facts alleged are sufficient at pleading stage

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (sets plausibility standard for pleadings in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (articulates pleading standard for facial plausibility)
Tucker v. City of Chicago, 907 F.3d 487 (7th Cir. 2018) (review standard for motion to dismiss, all well-pled facts are accepted as true)
Marcure v. Lynn, 992 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2021) (unopposed motions to dismiss may not be granted solely for lack of response)
Thomas v. Blackard, 2 F.4th 716 (7th Cir. 2021) (standard for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
Johnson v. Dominguez, 5 F.4th 818 (7th Cir. 2021) (elements of deliberate indifference claim)
Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2014) (defines objectively serious medical condition for Eighth Amendment claims)
Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010) (non-life-threatening conditions may still be objectively serious)
Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
Powers v. Snyder, 484 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2007) (deprivation of cane as basis for Eighth Amendment claim)