Tompkins, Bryson v. Anderson, Trisha, 3:18-cv-00446

Plaintiff Bryson Tompkins, a former Wisconsin inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution, was given his cellmate’s medications (paroxetine and amitriptyline) during a March 13, 2018 evening med pass and ingested them.
Tompkins reported feeling ill (nausea, vomiting, dizziness, blurred vision, chest pain) after ingestion; defendants dispute the severity and timing of symptoms.
Officer Robert Easterson and Sgt. Richard Cotton reported the error and contacted Health Services; Nurse Teresa Gaier called Dr. Salam Syed, who directed monitoring overnight.
Corrections staff monitored Tompkins overnight; the next-day HSU evaluation is disputed (defendants say Tompkins refused; Tompkins says he was not asked).
Tompkins filed an inmate grievance (CCI-2018-6748) naming security staff and a notice of claim (NOC-2018-05234) served by first-class mail.
Defendants moved to dismiss/for summary judgment; the court granted the motion: dismissed Eighth Amendment claims against Syed and Gaier for failure to exhaust, granted summary judgment for Cotton on the merits, and dismissed the Wisconsin negligence claim against Easterson for failure to serve notice by certified mail.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tompkins exhausted administrative remedies for claims against medical staff (Syed, Gaier)	Grievance about wrong meds and lack of medical help covered all responsible staff	Grievance named only security and did not put prison on notice of medical staff wrongdoing	Court: No exhaustion as to Syed and Gaier; claims dismissed without prejudice (but likely untimely to refile)
Whether Sgt. Cotton was deliberately indifferent or deceitful about contacting medical staff	Cotton lied about contacting HSU and disregarded Tompkins’ serious medical needs	Cotton and Easterson contacted HSU and relayed error; HSU instructed monitoring	Court: Summary judgment for Cotton; undisputed contacts with HSU defeat deliberate indifference/lying claim
Whether Easterson is liable in negligence under Wisconsin law for dispensing wrong meds	Easterson negligently gave another inmate’s meds causing harm	Defendants: claim barred by failure to comply with Wis. Stat. § 893.82 service method	Court: Negligence claim dismissed for failure to serve notice by certified mail (first-class mail insufficient)
Whether to retain and resolve the state-law claim after federal dismissal	Plaintiff seeks to proceed on state negligence claim	Defendants sought dismissal; court could decline supplemental jurisdiction	Court: Retained jurisdiction to dismiss state claim on merits as clearly meritless (time-saving)

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment prohibits deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires awareness of substantial risk of serious harm)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (grievance need not name defendants to satisfy exhaustion, but must alert prison to nature of wrong)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (purpose of exhaustion to allow prison administrators to address grievances)
Pozo v. McCaughtry, 286 F.3d 1022 (7th Cir. 2002) (prisoner must follow each step of administrative grievance process)
Snipes v. Detella, 95 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1996) (elements of deliberate indifference require both knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
Sorenson v. Batchelder, 368 Wis. 2d 140 (Wis. 2016) (first-class or personal service does not satisfy certified-mail requirement of Wis. Stat. § 893.82 at that time)
Korzen v. Local Union 705, 75 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 1996) (court may dismiss supplemental state claims on the merits when they clearly lack merit)