Steinke v. Hintz
2:19-cv-01086
E.D. Wis.Jul 8, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Nicholas Steinke, a former inmate at Dodge Correctional Institution, alleged that on December 3, 2014 he suffered a seizure in segregation, bit his tongue/lip, hurt his knee, and that emergency summons went unanswered.
- He says CO Glowinski and Sgt. Hintz were informed, documented the event, but HSU did not see him until December 5, 2014; he alleges other staff (named defendants) failed to investigate or provide timely care.
- He alleges a broader pattern including prior incidents (Nov. 7, 2014; Dec. 18, 2014; June 27, 2016) and that defendants conspired to cover up wrongdoing; he sues under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, the ADA, and 42 U.S.C. §§1981, 1985, 1986, seeking $5,000,000.
- The court granted Steinke leave to proceed IFP after a partial filing fee was paid and ordered remaining fees collected from his inmate account.
- The court screened the complaint under the PLRA and dismissed it for failure to state a claim, noting related incidents were and are the subject of other suits, and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment for delay/denial of medical care after seizure | Steinke: staff were aware of his seizure disorder/injuries and delayed or denied treatment (HSU saw him only on Dec. 5) | Allegations do not show objectively serious injury or constitutional-level deliberate indifference | Dismissed: injuries (bitten lip/tongue, knee pain) not shown objectively serious and two-day delay not alleged to have worsened condition; no Eighth Amendment claim pleaded |
| Whether defendants violated the ADA by discriminating against him because of his seizure disorder | Steinke: defendants knew of disability and refused accommodations/treatment, denying equal access | Individual staff are not liable under the ADA; plaintiff did not allege denial of prison services or suit against the public entity | Dismissed: ADA claims fail because only individual defendants sued (not DOC) and plaintiff did not allege denial of services/activities by reason of disability |
| Whether §§1981, 1985, 1986 conspiracy and racial-discrimination claims are stated | Steinke alleges conspiracies among staff to deny treatment and cover up misconduct | Plaintiff did not plead racial contract interference; conspiracy allegations are conclusory without factual ‘‘meeting of the minds’’ or overt acts | Dismissed: §1981 claim not applicable; §§1985/1986 and conspiracy claims fail for lack of factual allegations showing discriminatory purpose or concrete agreement and overt acts |
| Whether failure to investigate grievances or appeals is a constitutional violation | Steinke: grievance/appeal processors failed to investigate, dismissed complaints without interviews | Prisoners have no constitutional right to a particular investigation or to compel investigations | Dismissed: no constitutional right to grievance investigation; failing to investigate does not create a §1983 claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim based on factual content)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowing disregard of substantial risk)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (medical malpractice or negligence is not necessarily an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017) (screening standard for prisoner complaints)
- Booker-El v. Superintendent, Ind. State Prison, 668 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2012) (pro se pleadings construed liberally in screening)
- Smith v. Knox County Jail, 666 F.3d 1037 (7th Cir. 2012) (length of delay can be actionable depending on seriousness)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (seriousness of condition and ease of treatment inform delay analysis)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff must allege delay exacerbated condition)
- Jaros v. Illinois Dep't of Corr., 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims not available against individual employees)