Jermaine Carpenter v. Dawn Sullivan
695 F. App'x 147
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jermaine Carpenter, a civil detainee, suffered post-root-canal pain and swelling and was given a stronger prescription by an outside endodontist (medication not identified) plus written aftercare and a mouth rinse.
- The endodontist handed the prescribed pills to Carpenter’s escort to be delivered to the facility; Carpenter told Nurse Dawn Sullivan on return that he needed the medication but Sullivan refused, saying he already had ibuprofen and would not get the new drug.
- Subsequent requests: a later nurse provided only ibuprofen after saying the specialist’s prescription was rejected; two days later Nurse Grant Taylor delayed giving ibuprofen for about four hours despite requests from Carpenter, an aide, and a sergeant.
- Carpenter alleges ibuprofen was ineffective and that the endodontist anticipated that ibuprofen would not suffice; he filed suit four days after the procedure claiming Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference.
- The district court screened and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding (1) Carpenter had no absolute right to the specialist’s medication, (2) ibuprofen presumably alleviated the condition so it was not "serious," and (3) single refusals/delays did not plausibly show deliberate indifference; it denied leave to amend as futile.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated dismissal as to Nurses Dawn Sullivan and Grant Taylor and remanded for further proceedings, but affirmed the judgment in other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carpenter alleged a "serious" medical need for purposes of deliberate indifference | Post-surgical dental pain and swelling from a root canal is a serious need; ibuprofen did not relieve his pain | Ibuprofen was provided and the complaint does not allege it was ineffective, so the need is not serious | Court: Allegations suffice to plausibly plead a serious need; district court erred in assuming ibuprofen was effective |
| Whether refusal to dispense medication prescribed and supplied by a specialist can be deliberate indifference | Sullivan’s summary refusal to dispense the specialist’s drug (which the specialist supplied) showed deliberate indifference absent physician review | Facility argued no absolute right to specialist meds and staff can decline based on facility procedures | Court: Ignoring a specialist’s recommendation without physician assessment can be deliberate indifference; factual allegations suggest no physician review occurred, so dismissal was premature |
| Whether delay/refusal to provide over-the-counter ibuprofen can constitute deliberate indifference | Delay and refusal (including a four-hour wait) prolonged severe pain and may be actionable, given ease/cost of treatment | Single or brief delays and provision of ibuprofen weigh against deliberate indifference | Court: Delay may be actionable depending on seriousness and ease of treatment; allegations about Taylor’s four-hour delay warrant an opportunity to amend/plead further |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend | Carpenter offered additional facts on appeal (ibuprofen ineffective; specialist warned ibuprofen insufficient; later complaints to facility dentist) and should have been allowed to amend | District court held amendment would be futile and dismissed with prejudice | Court: Vacated dismissal as to Sullivan and Taylor and remanded; pro se plaintiff should have been given chance to amend given additional plausible facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court 1994) (deliberate indifference standard)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (deliberate indifference analysis for delays and refusals)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (definition of a serious medical need)
- Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2012) (ignoring a specialist’s recommendation may be deliberate indifference absent physician review)
- Walker v. Benjamin, 293 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2002) (postsurgical pain can be a serious medical condition)
- Dobbey v. Mitchell-Lawshea, 806 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2015) (dental pain may constitute a serious medical need)
- Gil v. Reed, 381 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2004) (cost/ease of treatment relevant to deliberate indifference)
- Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago & Nw. Ind., 786 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2015) (pro se complaints generally should be given opportunity to amend)
- Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2013) (accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true on screening)
- Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 2012) (delay in treatment may be deliberate indifference when it prolongs pain or worsens condition)