Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03304/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03304-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 26, 2016*

Decided September 16, 2016

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐3304

DARREN GRAY,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

PHIL MARTIN, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

No. 14‐cv‐1418‐SMY

Staci M. Yandle,

Judge.

O R D E R

Darren Gray brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that medical staff

at Lawrence Correctional Center in Illinois were deliberately indifferent in treating his

chronic cough and abdominal pain while he was incarcerated there. The district court

screened his complaint (which he already had amended once) and dismissed it for

failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We affirm.   

                                                 

* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without

oral argument because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal

arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 15-3304 Document: 18 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15‐3304    Page 2

Gray alleged that he did not receive adequate medical care for a cough he

developed while working in the prison laundry in October 2012.1 He said that Dr. Paul

Talbot prescribed cold and allergy medications for the cough but did not provide

treatment to “specifically remove the lint and dirt” from his lungs or run tests to

determine “the real reason” for his cough. When the medications did not work, Gray

asserted, the doctor “only prescribed different medications.” Gray also said that

Dr. Talbot had a face mask in his office that he could have given him to wear while

working in the laundry to protect his lungs, but that he did not do so. Gray added that a

second doctor, Dr. Albertto Butalid, merely “went off the assumptions of Dr. Paul

Talbot,” as recorded in his medical file, did not run further tests, and “only prescribed

more medications” when the cough persisted. In March 2014, Gray said, Dr. John Coe

continued the same prescription despite observing that, so far, “nothing has worked.”

And the following month Nurse Baker renewed that prescription. Gray said that he had

regular follow‐up appointments for his cough throughout early 2015, when he was

transferred to another correctional facility, but the cough never was cured.   

In addition to his cough, Gray alleged that he was not properly treated for

abdominal pain. He claimed that Dr. Coe had diagnosed him with H. Pylori, a common

collection of bacteria that reside in the digestive system and in rare cases can cause

peptic ulcers, but waited three months to prescribe medication. Initially, within the first

three months of starting the medication, Gray said that he tested negative for the

presence of blood antibodies to the bacteria. When he was tested again a year later,

however, the results were positive, reflecting either a current or past infection. Dr. Coe

examined Gray that same month, noting the he experienced “mild tenderness” in his

upper abdomen, that his “problem is long term,” and that the antibodies had “dropped

to near borderline.” According to Gray, Dr. Coe at that point should have provided

further treatment, but instead merely scheduled three follow‐up appointments over the

next five months, during which he ordered blood tests and X‐rays to check for

H. Pylori, acid reflux, indigestion, and gastritis.   

The district court screened the amended complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and

concluded that Gray failed to state a claim of deliberate indifference against the

defendants. Doctors Talbot and Butalid, the court explained, prescribed medications to

                                                 

1 Gray has abandoned his claim that his supervisor in the prison laundry was

deliberately indifferent in failing to provide him with a face mask to protect his lungs

from dryer lint. He has also abandoned his claim against Phil Martin, the health care

unit administrator at the prison, who, he said, oversaw the doctors who treated him.

Case: 15-3304 Document: 18 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15‐3304    Page 3

treat his cough, and when those medications did not work, they tried different ones.

Although neither doctor ordered further tests, the court said, there was no indication

that more testing was necessary. Nor was Dr. Talbot required to provide Gray with a

facemask. Nurse Baker, the court added, treated his cough by prescribing medications.

And as for Dr. Coe, the court concluded, he reasonably and effectively treated Gray’s

abdominal pain with prescriptions for H. Pylroi, gastroesophageal reflux disease

(GERD), gastritis, and reflux bronchitis—as well as ordering follow‐up tests to monitor

the H. Pylori infection. Although the medications did not eliminate Gray’s abdominal

pain, the court said, nothing in the record suggested that the treatment was

inappropriate or not based on legitimate medical judgment.   

On appeal Gray maintains that he adequately stated a claim that the defendants

acted with deliberate indifference in providing inadequate care for his cough and

H. Pylori infection. The doctors, he said, should have run more tests to determine the

cause of his cough rather than merely assume that it had been caused by lint from the

laundry room. But the district court correctly concluded that Gray failed to state a claim

of deliberate indifference based on the treatment of his cough. Although none of the

prescribed medications cured Gray’s cough, the doctors did not “simply continue with

a course of treatment that” they knew to be ineffective. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742,

754 (7th Cir. 2011). By Gray’s own account, see Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1374

(7th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff pleads himself out of court where complaint itself shows he has

no claim), when one medication did not work they tried another one. Gray contends

that the doctors should have run further tests to determine the cause of the cough, but

that is a claim of negligence or malpractice rather than deliberate indifference, id., and

will not support a claim under § 1983. Nothing in the complaint suggests that the

doctors’ decision to continue treating his cough with medicine rather than running

further tests was “such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment,

practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the” doctors “actually did not base the

decision” on medical judgment. Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008)

(quoting Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 895 (7th Cir. 2008)).

Gray also challenges the dismissal of his claim against Dr. Coe, who he believes

should have treated his H. Pylori infection sooner than three months upon diagnosis

and should have treated him as soon as he tested positive a year later for the presence

of antibodies to the bacteria. Failure to properly treat his H. Pylori infection, Gray says,

increased the chances that he may suffer from intestinal damage or stomach cancer in

the future.   

Case: 15-3304 Document: 18 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pages: 4
No. 15‐3304    Page 4

We agree with the district court that Gray did not state a claim with respect to

the treatment of his abdominal pain. He did not allege that the three‐month delay in

receiving medication harmed him, see Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012);

indeed, as he acknowledged, he tested negative for the presence of antibodies to

H. Pylori within three months of starting the medicine. Although Dr. Coe did not

prescribe treatment after he tested positive a year later, the doctor explained that the

antibodies had “dropped to near borderline” levels and that H. Pylori was a “long

term” problem that would have to be monitored. As Gray acknowledges, Dr. Coe over

the next five months examined him at three follow‐up appointments and ordered

further blood tests.   

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3304 Document: 18 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pages: 4