Miguel Perez v. James Fenoglio
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11672
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- In May 2010, inmate Miguel Perez suffered a severe right-hand injury (torn ligament, thumb dislocation, deep gaping wound) during a prison basketball game at Lawrence Correctional Center.
- Initial on-site care consisted of a nurse wrapping the wound; a physician (Dr. Fenoglio) prescribed antibiotics and recommended outside specialist care at Carle Clinic. Referral approval by Health Care Administrator Phil Martin was delayed several days.
- At Carle Clinic five days after injury, a PA determined the wound was too old to suture and ordered twice-daily wound care and follow-up; prison staff failed to follow those instructions and missed the follow-up.
- Perez repeatedly filed grievances complaining of pain, lack of follow-up, and that the delays were retaliatory for a prior grievance; appeals of grievances were denied or unanswered. Seven months later he saw a specialist who recommended surgery; surgery occurred about ten months after the injury, by which time Perez alleges permanent loss of hand function.
- Perez sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and a First Amendment retaliation claim; the district court denied appointed counsel, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Perez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim | Perez: severe injury, repeated delays, ignored specialists’ recommendations, resulting pain and permanent loss | State: Perez received immediate and continuing medical attention; some defendants lacked authority to provide care; grievance officials not personally liable | Reversed: Liberally construed, complaint plausibly alleges an objectively serious injury and deliberate indifference by medical staff, administrator, corporate provider, and grievance officials; claim survives screening |
| Liability of prison physician (Dr. Fenoglio) | Perez: knew injury required specialist, delayed/refused recommended treatment, treated with only an Ace bandage (sarcastic remark evidences attitude) | Dr. Fenoglio: provided care; professional judgment; no constitutional violation | Reversed: Allegations of unexplained, consequential delays and ignoring specialists’ recommendations plausibly state deliberate indifference |
| Liability of nonmedical/grievance officials for failing to act on written complaints | Perez: grievances and appeals gave them actual knowledge and they failed to intervene | State: grievance handlers lack direct medical responsibility; cannot be liable on respondeat superior theory | Reversed: Correspondence can give knowledge; ignoring requests may show deliberate indifference; grievances provide a plausible basis for personal liability |
| Whether complaint stated First Amendment retaliation claim | Perez: had filed earlier grievance about medication; May 2010 grievance alleges punishment in retribution and later denial/delay of care was motivated by that grievance | State: denial of treatment was appropriate or unrelated; procedural screening justified dismissal | Reversed: Attachment of grievance alleging retaliatory motive suffices at screening to state a retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (deliberate indifference requires actual knowledge of substantial risk and reckless disregard)
- Edwards v. Snyder, 478 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2007) (receipt of some care does not defeat deliberate indifference; brief unexplained delays can state a claim)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (delays for nonmedical reasons that exacerbate injury can constitute deliberate indifference)
- Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2011) (pro se complaints liberally construed; officials acting contrary to specialist recommendations may be liable)
- Thulin v. Shopko Stores Operating Co., 771 F.3d 994 (7th Cir. 2014) (pleading standard and drawing inferences for pro se litigants)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (PLRA screening does not eliminate usual amendment practices)
- Pruitt v. Mott, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
- Henderson v. Ghosh, 755 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2014) (review of denial of pro bono counsel for reasonableness)