Peter Poole, III v. Debbie Issacs
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26544
7th Cir.2012Background
- Poole, an Illinois prisoner, challenges a $2 co-payment for dental care at Big Muddy River Correctional Center under the Eighth Amendment.
- Poole eventually received the necessary care after paying the co-payment, but he sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violation.
- District court dismissed several defendants; it allowed suit against Isaacs, the health-care administrator, and later granted summary judgment for Isaacs after discovery.
- Material facts: Poole had prior dental issues; 2008 visit was designated non-follow-up by Isaacs; Poole had funds but refused payment and grieved the denial.
- Poole argued the co-payment violated constitutional rights; the district court held the plan constitutional or Isaacs entitled to qualified immunity.
- Appellate court held that a modest co-payment does not violate the Constitution; Poole’s indigency exemptions exist and delay was Poole’s choice; affirmed summary judgment and two-strikes ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a modest inmate co-payment violate the Eighth Amendment? | Poole: unconstitutional per se | Isaacs: permissible cost-sharing; indigent exemptions exist | Not unconstitutional; permissible with exemptions |
| Is Isaacs liable given the delay was Poole's choice and not denial of care? | Isaacs denied care by withholding due to fee | Delay caused by Poole's refusal to pay | Isaacs entitled to summary judgment; no §1983 claim against her |
| Are exemptions for follow-up visits actionable under §1983? | Follow-up exemption should apply to care | Follow-up exemption is a state-law issue | Not actionable under §1983; state-law question |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1983) (due process, not Eighth Amendment, governs cost allocation for care)
- Reynolds v. Wagner, 128 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 1997) (inmates may pay modest portions of medical care without constitutional violation)
- Tillman v. Lebanon Cnty. Corr. Facility, 221 F.3d 410 (3d Cir. 2000) (supports fee-for-service approach for inmate medical care)
- Shapley v. Nevada Bd. of State Prison Comm’rs, 766 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1985) (financial responsibility for medical care consistent with constitutional standards)
- Negron v. Gillespie, 111 P.3d 556 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005) (state court upholds cost-sharing for inmate medical care)
- Mourning v. CMS of St. Louis, Mo., 692 A.2d 529 (N.J. App. Div. 1997) (affirmed consideration of inmate medical fees within constitutional framework)