Michael Moffett v. Shane Garland, 20-2376

Michael Moffett, a Wisconsin inmate, was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea in January 2017; a sleep specialist recommended CPAP as the “gold standard.”
Nurse practitioner Susan Peters issued a CPAP and repeatedly treated Moffett’s nasal/sinus congestion (allergy meds, nasal sprays, Neti pot) after he reported difficulty using the device.
Moffett asked Peters about sinus surgery; he alleges Peters said it was too expensive and thus would not be provided. Nurse Shane Garland later discussed the issue with Moffett and allegedly said the facility would provide necessary surgery and that he would ask Peters about her remark.
Moffett sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference for refusing or discontinuing CPAP and for refusing to consider sinus surgery; district court granted summary judgment for Peters and Garland (exhaustion ruling re Garland and merits re Peters).
On appeal Moffett confined his challenge to the claim that Peters and Garland unlawfully prevented sinus surgery; the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment but on slightly different grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Peters’ refusal to consider sinus surgery (allegedly due to cost) amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Peters refused to consider surgery because of cost and thereby denied necessary care	Peters provided the recommended CPAP, repeatedly treated congestion, and reasonably concluded surgery was not medically indicated; mere disagreement is not deliberate indifference	No deliberate indifference. Responsive treatment and the specialist’s CPAP recommendation foreclose a claim that Peters acted with a culpable state of mind
Whether Moffett exhausted administrative remedies as to Garland	Grievance complaining of inadequate sleep-apnea care and Peters’ cost remark provided adequate notice to the prison	Grievance failed to identify Garland specifically so exhaustion failed	Wisconsin regulations do not require naming the perpetrator, so grievance was adequate; but Garland is entitled to judgment on the merits because there is no evidence surgery was necessary or that Garland was obligated to intervene

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference framework)
Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017) (disagreement with medical judgment is not an Eighth Amendment violation)
Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2019) (prisoners do not have a right to demand specific treatment; responsive care undermines deliberate indifference)
Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2019) (plaintiff must show a minimally competent professional would have used a different treatment)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (exhaustion governed by statute and applicable state/regulatory requirements)
Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990 (7th Cir. 2020) (grievance sufficiency measured by whether it notifies the prison of the nature of the wrong)
Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2009) (one prisoner cannot insist that one employee do another’s job)
Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435 (7th Cir. 2010) (cost can be a relevant factor in deliberate-indifference analysis in some contexts)
McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (cost-related remarks are irrelevant where treatment provided was adequate)
Roberts v. Neal, 745 F.3d 232 (7th Cir. 2014) (illustrates differing exhaustion results under state-specific grievance rules)