United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted October 23, 2020*

Decided October 23, 2020

Before

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 19-2921

MOHAMMAD MANSOORI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

SCOTT MOATS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 1:17-cv-01312-MMM

Michael M. Mihm,

Judge.

O R D E R

After arriving at the Federal Correctional Institution in Pekin, 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 requests, 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. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 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 serious 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 wearing 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 softsoled shoes he had brought from his prior prison because of “stage III+ peripheral 

neuropathy.”

Less than a month later, Mansoori asked a nurse for a new pair of soft-soled 

shoes. The 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 those 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 administrative 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 neuropathy of which Mansoori complained.

On October 17, 2012, after a nurse saw Mansoori 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 protective sensation,” he lacked any “deformity, 

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 after the meeting, 

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

own statements 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 medications that Dr. Lee Ho had prescribed for Mansoori’s 

neuropathy (acetaminophen and pregabalin) on 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 neuropathy, 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 prison. Ultimately, a prison health services administrator

authorized 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 were 

medically appropriate 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 in 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. § 1915A, 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

therefore 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 appeal, Mansoori contends that whether he suffered unnecessary pain 

because Dr. Moats refused to authorize specialized footwear is a disputed fact 
No. 19-2921 Page 4

precluding summary judgment. The Eighth Amendment prohibits a prison official’s 

deliberate indifference to an inmate’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 

professional would have so responded.” Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014).

Mansoori failed to refute the evidence that Dr. Moats’s refusal to authorize 

specialized footwear was the product of his professional judgment. See id. 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 

some records documented his complaints of neuropathic pain, Mansoori took

medication for that condition, which Dr. Moats considered appropriate treatment. 

Based on the medical history, Dr. Moats determined 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.

But 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 softsoled shoes.”). Therefore, Mansoori cannot show that 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 authorized 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 

entitled 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, 1013 (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