# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 2 3 , 20 20 *

Decided October 23

, 20 20

Before

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN

, C ircuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judg e

AMY J. ST. EVE

, Circuit Judge

No. 19

- 29 21

MOHAMM A D MANSOORI

, P laintiff

- Appellant

,

v

.

SCOTT MOATS

, Defendant

- Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois

.

No. 1:1 7

- cv

- 01312

- MMM

Michael M. Mihm

, Judge

.

O R D E R

A fter arriving at the Federal Correctional Inst itution in Pek i n, Illinois,

Mohammad Mansoori repeatedly requested authorization for a pair of soft

- soled shoes to relieve foot pain from diabetes and a gunshot wound

. The prison’s Clinical Director,

Dr. Scott Moats, denied his request s , and Mansoori filed this Bivens action against him for violating the Eighth Amendment

. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of

* We have 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

. F ED

. R. A PP

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

. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 19

- 2921 Page 2

Narcotics

, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) . The district court granted Dr. Moats’ s motion for summary judgment

, determining that no reasonable juror could find that he was deliberately indifferent to Mansoori’s seri ous medical needs . We affirm.

Mansoori suffers from many chronic health conditions, including diabetes , and

he was first approved to wear soft

- soled or “diabetic” shoes in 2008

. After his transfer to Pekin in August 2012, Mansoori hoped to continue wearin g soft

- soled shoes instead of

the standard

- issue uniform shoes

. At an appointment shortly after the transfer, Mansoori told his primary

- care physician, Dr. Jeffrey Lee Ho

, that the soft

- soled shoes

ameliorated pain in his legs and feet , which he attributed to a gunshot wound.

Dr. Lee Ho assessed Mansoori’s feet and authorized him to continue wearing the soft

soled shoes he had brought from his prior prison because of “stage III+ peripheral neuropathy.”

Less than a month later, Mansoori asked a nu rse for a new pair of soft

- soled

shoes. T he prison ’s policies require the Clinical Director to approve the purchase of

medical shoes

. Dr. Moats did not do so . Instead, he consulted with Dr. Lee Ho, who

then revoked his authorization for the shoes. Dr. Lee Ho later attested that he

reconsidered his initial decision because he was made aware that the Bureau of Prisons’ general patient

- care guidelines and its 2012 Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Diabetes recommended specialty shoes only for thos e in Risk Categories 2 and 3 under the criteria of the Lower Extremity Amputation Prevention (“LEAP”) program

. But Mansoori had “no deformity, ulceration, or amputation” of his feet, which placed him in LEAP Category 1

. Dr. Lee Ho also considered Mansoori’s complaint of neuropathic pain, but concluded that it should be treated with medication.

Dr. Lee Ho entered an adm inistrative note in Mansoori’s medical record reflecting his updated decision on October 16, 2012 . The note stated that Mansoori could wear uniform shoes because he had “a normal gait” and no “ chronic, non

- healing wounds or

ulcers on his feet.” Dr. Lee Ho further observed that Mansoori’s medical record did not objectively support the neuropath y of which Mansoori complained.

On October 17, 2012, after a nurse saw Ma nsoori wearing soft

- soled shoes,

Dr. Moats updated Mansoori’s “ Medical Duty Status ” form to reflect that he was required to wear uniform footwear. Dr. Moats later attested that , when he updated the form, Mansoori could safely wear uniform shoes because he fell into LEAP Category 1 : Although he had a “partial loss of protect ive sensation,” he lacked any “deformi ty, ulceration, or amputation ” in his feet.No. 19

- 2921 Page 3

Mansoori kept asking prison staff for soft

- soled shoes and filing grievances about

the lack of medical authorization . So, in November 2012, the warden and other prison

officials met with Dr. Moats and Mansoori to resolve the issue. Mansoori again explained that soft

- soled shoes alleviated his neuropathic pain. But a fter the meeting

, Dr. Moats entered a note in Mansoori’s medical record stating that, based on Mansoori’s

own statem ents and Dr. Moats’ s review of his record, Mansoori could safely wear

uniform shoes. He further explained that soft

- soled shoes have “no evidence[

- ]based recommendation for use in treating neuropathic pain” and that Mansoori had been given pain medication such as gabapentin for that condition. After 2012, Dr. Moats
renewed some of the medication s that Dr. Lee Ho had presc ribed for Mansoori’s neuropathy (acetaminophen and pregabalin) o n four occasions, but had no other

involvement in Mansoori ’s treatment for diabetes or neuropathy

.

From 2013 to 2018 (when he was released from prison), Mansoori complained of foot pain at some of his many more appointments with Dr. Lee Ho or the nursing staff. They changed and adjusted his medications for neuropa thy, but consistently concluded

that he could wear standard shoes. Mansoori, however, persisted in requesting

soft

- soled shoes or, alternatively, other non

- uniform shoes that would fit an orthotic

insert he had from a previous pris on. Ultimately, a prison health services administrator

auth orized Mansoori to wear non

- standard shoes in 2013 and gave him sneakers that fit

his insert in 2015 . Drs. Lee Ho and Moats always believed uniform shoes w ere medically appropriat e and did not approve new shoes or Mansoori’s use of the insert

.

After he did not receive another new pair of non

- uniform shoes i n 2016,

Mansoori sued Dr. Moats and some of the prison’s administrative staff (but not

Dr. Lee Ho). The district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 19 15A, and allowed Mansoori to proceed only on an Eighth Amendment claim against Dr. Moats.

Dr. Moats moved for summary judgment. In opposing the motion , Mansoori failed to respond to Dr. Moats’ s statement of undisputed material facts. The district court

the refore deemed those facts admitted under Central District of Illinois Local

Rule 7.1(D)(2)(6)

— a decision Mansoori does not challenge on appeal. See Frakes v. Peoria
Sch. Dist. No. 150

, 872 F.3d 545

, 550 (7th Cir. 2017 ) (Central District of Illinois has

discretion to set and enforce local rules)

. The court entered summary judgment for

Dr. Moats

, concluding that , based on the undisputed evidence, no reasonable jury could

find that he was deliberately indifferent

.

On appe al, Mansoori contends that whether he suffered unnecessary pain

because Dr. Moats refused to authorize specialized footwear is a disputed factNo. 19

- 2921 Page 4

precluding summary judgment

. The Eighth Amendment prohibits a prison official’s

d eliberate indifference to a n inm ate’s serious medical need

. Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). Dr. Moats has never argued that Mansoori does not have a serious
medical condition , so we consider only whether a reasonable juror could conclude that

Dr. Moats knew of , but disregarded, his medical need

. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.
825, 837 (1994); Petties v. Carter , 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). A physician ’ s professional judgment is given deference , however, unless “ no minimally competent profession al would have so responded

. ” Pyles v. Fahim , 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014).

Mansoori fail ed to refute the evidence that Dr. Moats ’s refusal to authorize specialized footwear was the product of his professional judgment. See i d. We have held

before that a prison physician’ s decision to deny an inmate soft

- soled shoes is not deliberately indifferent when supported by the inmate’s medical record

. See Norfleet v.

Webster

, 439 F.3d 392 , 396

– 97 (7th Cir. 2006)

. When Dr. Moats made his decision in 2012,

Mansoori’s medical record showed that he had lost some sensation in his left foot but

that his feet were free from irritation , ulcers, or deformities

. It also included

Dr. Lee Ho’s assessment that uniform shoes were appropriate because Mansoori had “a normal gait” and no “ chronic, non

- healing wounds or ulcers on his feet .” Although

s ome records documented hi s complaints of neuropathic pain, Mansoori took

medication for that condition , which Dr. Moats consi dered appropriate treatment

. Based on the medical history, Dr. Moats determine d that Mansoori fell into LEAP Category 1 and could safely wear uniform shoes

. Mansoori insists in his brief that he was in a higher risk category and that Dr. Moats should have examined him personally.

B ut Mansoori does not have medical evidence undermining Dr. Moats’s conclusion

— which his primary

- care physician , Dr. Lee Ho, agreed with after he reviewed the

relevant criteria

. Norfleet , 439 F.3d at 396 (“ It is undisputed that Dr. Webster reviewed

Norfleet ’ s medical history in making the determination that Norfleet did not need soft

soled shoes.”). Therefore, Mansoori cannot show tha t Dr. Moats’s decision not to authorize specialty shoes was “ blatantly inappropriate ” under the circumstances.

See Pyles , 771 F.3d at 409

.

Mansoori emphasizes that other doctors a uthorized him to wear soft

- soled shoes in the past . But disagreement among medical professionals is insufficient evidence of

deliberate indifference

. Id

. Dr. Moats did not simply refuse to authorize the purchase; he

reviewed Mansoori’s medical record and consulted with Dr. Lee Ho, so his decision is

entit led to deference. Although Mansoori would have preferred soft

- soled shoes, he

was not entitled to his preferred treatment , only to adequate care. See Johnson v.No. 19

- 2921 Page 5

Doughty , 433 F.3d 1001

, 101 3 (7th Cir. 2006 ). On this record , he cannot establish that the deprivation of soft

- soled shoes violated that standard. See Norfleet , 439 F.3d at 396

– 397.

AFFIRMED