United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 7, 2019*

Decided January 15, 2019

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 18‐1302

GEORGE REED,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

KRISTEN VASQUEZ, et al.,   

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 17‐CV‐1722

William C. Griesbach,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

George Reed, a Wisconsin inmate suffering from plantar fasciitis, sued prison

officials for their deliberate indifference to his foot pain. He alleged that they ignored a

podiatrist’s recommendation to provide supportive shoes from a nonstandard prison

vendor. The district court screened his complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a

claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Because documents that Reed attached to his complaint

show that prison officials offered him the opportunity to buy supportive shoes through

                                                 

* We agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 18‐1302    Page 2

the prison’s usual vendors, the officials did not disregard Reed’s condition, and we

affirm.

     We draw the following facts from Reed’s complaint and its attachments, Carmody

v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ill., 747 F.3d 470, 471 (7th Cir. 2014), which include treatment

notes, grievances, and Reed’s correspondence with prison officials. While incarcerated

at Racine Correctional Institution, Reed visited Dr. Matthew Larsen, a podiatrist at an

off‐site clinic, for treatment of his plantar fasciitis, a painful condition that left his feet

infected and swollen. In his treatment notes, Dr. Larsen “recommended that [Reed] get

better, more supportive shoe gear than what is offered from [the prison’s] current

vendors.” Another physician’s report from the same date recommended that Reed

receive a “night splint” and “more supportive shoe gear [from] outside ... vendors” like

“New Balance or Brooks with Superfeet insoles or Lyncos.” (The physician’s signature

on this report was illegible, but Reed insists it was signed by “Dr. Greg,” a prison

doctor.) Reed later submitted a written request to the prison’s health‐services unit

requesting permission to purchase shoes from an outside vendor.

Health‐services personnel Laura Frazier and Kristine Vasquez responded to

Reed’s submission by ordering a night splint and insoles, but they denied his request to

order shoes from an outside vendor. They informed him that supportive New Balance

shoes were available through the prison’s usual vendors, so ordering from an outside

vendor was unnecessary. But Reed insisted on ordering shoes from an outside vendor.

Through successive internal grievances, he protested that the recommendation for the

New Balance shoes had come from Dr. Greg, not Dr. Larsen, and that New Balance

shoes were insufficiently supportive.

After filing unsuccessful grievances with the Department of Corrections, Reed

brought this deliberate‐indifference suit against several prison health‐services officials.

He alleged essentially that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference by failing

to follow Dr. Larsen’s instructions to provide him with shoes from an outside vendor.

Later he moved to amend his complaint to add a new defendant, Bureau of Health

Services Director James Greer.

At screening the district court concluded that Reed’s complaint and

accompanying exhibits failed to state a deliberate‐indifference claim against any

defendant. Based on information contained in the exhibits, the court determined that

the defendants were aware of Reed’s serious foot condition but none showed disregard

for it. Reed’s correspondence with the health‐services unit showed that they offered him

the opportunity to buy New Balance shoes through a standard prison vendor based on
No. 18‐1302    Page 3

a physician’s opinion that New Balance shoes would provide him with the support he

needed. As for Reed’s motion to amend to add Greer as a defendant, the judge denied it

because Reed failed to supplement it with a copy of his proposed amended complaint.

See E.D. WIS. CIV. LOCAL R. 15(a).

On appeal Reed maintains that New Balance shoes do not provide the support he

requires and that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference by not following

Dr. Larsen’s instructions to let him order shoes from an outside vendor. By limiting him

to the prison’s current vendors, he asserts, the officials caused his condition to worsen

to the point that he contracted a foot infection requiring a cortisone injection.

The district court properly dismissed the complaint. Assuming plantar fasciitis is

a serious medical need, Reed needed to plausibly allege that officials consciously

disregarded his need for supportive shoes in order to state a claim for deliberate

indifference. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837–38 (1994); Arnett v. Webster,

658 F.3d 742, 755–56 (7th Cir. 2011). Far from alleging that officials ignored his medical

needs, Reed had, in the judge’s words, pleaded the “opposite.” His attachments show

that prison officials offered him multiple opportunities to purchase New Balance shoes,

which a physician had recommended. Reed’s argument that Dr. Greg, not Dr. Larsen,

prescribed New Balance is immaterial—prison officials are not deliberately indifferent if

they choose between two different courses of treatment as long as the patient’s medical

records support either approach. See Norfleet v. Webster, 439 F.3d 392, 396–97 (7th Cir.

2006) (finding no deliberate indifference where prison officials followed a course of

treatment that differed only “in degree” from an off‐site doctor’s recommendation).   

Reed also generally challenges the denial of his motion to amend his complaint

to add Greer as a defendant. But even pro se litigants must comply with local rules,

McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Pearle Vision, Inc. v. Romm, 541 F.3d 751,

758 (7th Cir. 2008), so the judge appropriately dismissed Reed’s motion to amend based

on his failure to submit a proposed amended complaint with his motion. In any event,

the amendment would have been futile because the documents attached to Reed’s

complaint reflect that he cannot state a claim against the prison officials.

Because the district court dismissed Reed’s complaint for failure to state claim,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he has accrued a strike on appeal in addition to the one incurred

in the district court, see Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000).   

AFFIRMED