Kane v. Santos, 3:17-cv-01054

Background

In October 2015 while incarcerated at Centralia Correctional Center, Kane developed a large, painful, odorous growth on his right arm and repeatedly sought medical care.
Initial HCU visits resulted in minimal treatment (Band-Aid; sent back to cell); condition worsened with leakage and pain.
Doctor Santos performed an in-house surgical procedure without properly prepping or administering anesthesia until after cutting; nurses Pickett and Schumukor observed and did not stop him; Medical Director allegedly condoned the conduct.
Santos said the procedure ideally required an outside hospital but declined referral because of cost; he later recorded the wound as "fine" despite ongoing drainage and infection.
Kane alleges lasting deformity, pain, loss of range of motion, and seeks damages and corrective surgery; he had been transferred to another facility before filing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Doctor Santos displayed Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by providing inadequate care for a serious arm lesion	Kane: Santos performed an inadequate in-house procedure, causing pain, infection, and deformity; he knowingly denied proper outside care	Santos: (implied) treatment choice was medical judgment, not deliberate indifference	Court: Survives screening—Count 1 proceeds against Doctor Santos
Whether Nurses Pickett and Schumukor and the Medical Director are liable under the Eighth Amendment for failing to intervene	Kane: Nurses and Medical Director witnessed/condoned harmful procedure and failed to stop it	Defendants: (implied) nurses defer to physician judgment; Medical Director not personally alleged by name	Court: Survives screening—Count 2 proceeds against Nurses Pickett, Schumukor, and Unknown Medical Director (to be identified)
Whether Doctor Santos violated substantive due process by performing surgery without informed consent	Kane: Santos performed surgery without obtaining consent or providing information necessary to refuse treatment	Santos: (implied) necessity of treatment and penological considerations may justify action	Court: Survives screening—Count 3 (Fourteenth Amendment informed-consent claim) proceeds against Doctor Santos
Whether injunctive relief (corrective surgery) is proper	Kane: Seeks court order for corrective surgery	Defendants: Transfer to another facility; present absence of ongoing denial undermines request	Court: Request for injunctive relief is moot as to Centralia because Kane transferred; he may bring separate suit at current facility if appropriate

Key Cases Cited

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (defines frivolousness standard under § 1915)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment requires prisoners receive adequate medical care)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (elements of deliberate indifference: objective and subjective components)
Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses when treatment choices may constitute deliberate indifference)
Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (§ 1983 liability requires personal involvement; respondeat superior not sufficient)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (personal involvement and pleading standards under § 1983)
Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (recognizes liberty interest in refusing medical treatment)
Pabon v. Wright, 459 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2006) (framework for prisoner informed-consent substantive due process claim)
Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (prisoner may use limited discovery to identify unknown defendants)