Jackson, DeBradre v. Sousek, Robert
3:19-cv-00939
W.D. Wis.Jun 29, 2022Background
- Plaintiff DeBradre Jackson, incarcerated at Jackson Correctional Institution (JCI), sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for nine months of denied/ delayed care for chronic neck, back, and right shoulder pain.
- Upon transfer to JCI in Feb 2019, Jackson requested physical therapy, a TENS unit, resistance band, and accommodations; he had prior PT and equipment at a prior facility.
- Nurses Sandra Ender and Robert Sousek saw/assessed him in February 2019 but did not refer him to an advanced care provider or PT; subsequent nursing staff (Pauline Hulstein, Tammy Maassen, Kristine Pralle) reviewed requests but took limited steps; ANP Debra Tidquist learned of the request in Sept 2019 and required an in-person exam before authorizing PT/TENS.
- Plaintiff never saw an advanced care provider or physical therapist while at JCI; after transfers in late Oct/Nov 2019, he was seen promptly and given naproxen, a TENS unit, and a resistance band.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for Bret Reynolds, Debra Tidquist, Kristine Pralle, and Warden Lizzie Tegels; denied summary judgment as to Nurses Ender, Sousek, Hulstein, and HSU manager Maassen; qualified immunity was denied for the four remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nine-month delay/denial of PT/TENS and other care violated the Eighth Amendment | Delay and failure to provide/arrange treatment needlessly prolonged pain and worsened symptoms (numbness, tingling, tearing sensation) | No showing of serious harm from delay; understaffing, restrictive housing, and legitimate medical triage explain delay | A reasonable jury could find the unexplained delay unconstitutional; summary judgment denied on this issue as to some defendants |
| Whether each defendant was personally involved in the constitutional violation | Nursing and HSU staff reviewed requests and could have referred or scheduled care but failed to do so | Some defendants lacked involvement or authority to provide/ schedule care | Summary judgment granted for Reynolds, Tidquist, Pralle, Tegels (no personal involvement); denied for Ender, Sousek, Hulstein, Maassen (sufficient evidence of personal inaction) |
| Whether plaintiff’s demand for specific treatments (TENS, resistance band) undermines his claim | Requests for specific items support claim because they were reasonable components of ongoing therapy and plaintiff had prior prescriptions | Prisoners cannot demand particular treatments; medical judgment governs specific therapy choices | Denial of a particular therapy alone is not dispositive, but failure to refer/arrange any timely evaluation or care can support an Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity | Jackson: law clearly established that unnecessary delays in treating pain violate the Eighth Amendment | Defendants: conduct did not violate clearly established law, so immunity applies | Qualified immunity denied for Ender, Sousek, Hulstein, Maassen; reasonable official would have known delays in treating serious pain can be unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard for medical care)
- Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262 (7th Cir. 1997) (deliberate indifference requires awareness and conscious disregard of a serious medical need)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (inexplicable delay in treatment may show deliberate indifference)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (delay’s constitutionality depends on condition seriousness, ease of treatment, and exacerbation of injury)
- Gaddis v. DeMattei, 30 F.4th 625 (7th Cir. 2022) (summary judgment: court accepts plaintiff’s version of disputed facts)
- Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392 (7th Cir. 2006) (medical-judgment decisions typically do not constitute Eighth Amendment violations)
- Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2019) (prisoners do not have an absolute right to demand specific treatment)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (pain can be a serious medical need)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)