Miller v. Campanella
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12979
7th Cir.2015Background
- Miller, an inmate at Lawrence Correctional Center, arrived Nov 2010 and reported chronic GERD for which he had previously taken prescription ranitidine (Zantac).
- At intake and orientation he requested renewal of his Zantac prescription from nursing staff; nurses and the director of nursing did not obtain timely treatment.
- A first doctor appointment was scheduled about one month after arrival but was cancelled due to a prison lockdown; Miller was not seen by a doctor for about two months and repeatedly complained in the interim.
- Guards and staff allegedly minimized his complaints (e.g., told him he was not bleeding or dead so it was not an emergency); when finally seen a doctor renewed his prescription.
- Miller sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants, but the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay in providing treatment for GERD amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference | Miller: two-month lack of treatment for severe, painful, potentially dangerous GERD shows deliberate indifference | Defendants: delay was short (one month); lockdown justified limited access; treatment was not constitutionally inadequate | Reversed: material dispute exists whether two-month delay and staff responses demonstrate deliberate indifference for a serious condition |
| Proper start date for measuring delay | Miller: delay measured from his first requests in late November | Defendants: measure from first scheduled doctor visit (Dec 29), so delay was shorter | Court: district court erred in starting the clock at the canceled appointment rather than when Miller first requested care; factual dispute remains |
| Whether lockdown excuses denial of non-emergency medical care | Miller: lockdown did not justify leaving him without care for weeks given severity | Defendants: lockdown restricts non-emergency access; prison policy prevents Zantac without a doctor | Court: unexplained why lockdown precluded any non-emergency doctor access; defendants did not justify the restriction at summary judgment |
| Whether appointment of counsel is warranted on remand | Miller: (pro se) complex medical issues may require counsel to investigate and present evidence | Defendants: (implicit) no special counsel needed | Court: suggested district court consider appointing counsel where appropriate given medical complexity and later-stage litigation needs |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing unreasonable delay in prison medical treatment and counsel appointment considerations)
- Williams v. O’Leary, 55 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 1995) (definition of deliberate indifference by prison officials)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2006) (failure to treat a serious medical condition can constitute deliberate indifference)