UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

RAYMOND BEARD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1779 PS 

vs. )

)

GLOBAL POLYMERS, LLC, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Raymond Beard, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint (DE 4) under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he was injured as a result of working in hazardous conditions at the

Westville Correctional Facility and that he was denied proper medical care for his injuries. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, I must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a),

(b). To survive dismissal, a complaint must contain enough to state a claim for relief that

is plausible on its face and to raise the right to relief above the speculative level. Bissessur

v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 581 F.3d 599, 602-03 (7th Cir. 2009). “A claim has facial

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 603.

Nevertheless, I must bear in mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally

construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

-1-
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.

89, 94 (2007). “In order to state a claim under § 1983 a plaintiff must allege: (1) that

defendants deprived him of a federal constitutional right; and (2) that the defendants acted

under color of state law.” Savory v. Lyons, 469 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2006). 

Beard is an inmate at Westville Correctional Facility (“Westville”). As an inmate he

worked for Global Polymers. Beard complained to his Global supervisors, Rob Wright and

John Graff, about water leaking from the ceiling onto the ground, making his work area

slippery, but Wright and Graff refused to consider the condition to be an unsafe

environment. On December 12, 2012, Beard slipped and fell while walking to his work

station, hitting his head on the concrete floor.

A violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause

consists of two elements: (1) objectively, whether the injury is sufficiently serious to deprive

the prisoner of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities, and (2) subjectively,

whether the prison official’s actual state of mind was one of “deliberate indifference” to the

deprivation. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Here, Beard’s slip and fall claim

does not satisfy the objective prong of this test. 

“[N]ot every deviation from ideally safe conditions constitutes a violation of the

constitution. The Eighth amendment does not constitutionalize the Indiana Fire Code. Nor

does it require complete compliance with the numerous OSHA regulations.” French v.

Owens, 777 F.2d 1250, 1257 (7th Cir. 1985) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

“Conditions of confinement must be severe to support an Eighth Amendment claim; the

-2-
prison officials’ act or omission must result in the denial of the minimal civilized measure

of life’s necessities.” Morissette v. Peters, 45 F.3d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks

and citations omitted). “An objectively sufficiently serious risk, is one that society considers

so grave that to expose any unwilling individual to it would offend contemporary

standards of decency.” Christopher v. Buss, 384 F.3d 879, 882 (7th Cir. 2004) (quotation

marks and citations omitted). However, as the Tenth Circuit has explained, “while the

standing-water problem was a potentially hazardous condition, slippery floors constitute

a daily risk faced by members of the public at large. Federal courts from other circuits have

therefore consistently held that slippery prison floors do not violate the Eighth

Amendment.” Reynolds v. Powell, 370 F.3d 1028, 1031 (10th Cir. 2004) (collecting cases). 

Beard also claims to have been denied adequate medical treatment for the injuries

he sustained as a result of the fall. Inmates are entitled to adequate medical care. Estelle v.

Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability, a prisoner must satisfy both an

objective and subjective component by showing: (1) his medical need was objectively

serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that medical need.

Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834. A medical need is “serious” if it is one that a physician has

diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would

easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th

Cir. 2005). For a medical professional to be held liable for deliberate indifference, he or she

must make a decision that represents “such a substantial departure from accepted

professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person

-3-
responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541

F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). 

When Beard arrived at the medical room after the fall, Nurse Cody performed an

X-ray and Doctor Krembs ordered a pain shot and a wheelchair for Beard’s back pain. 

Apparently, Nurse Cody did not give Beard the pain shot or a wheelchair. Instead, Beard

was given only aspirin for his headache. Beard was then forced to walk one-quarter mile

back to his dorm. Beard asserts that he should have been given a medical accommodation

so that he did not have to walk, since walking caused him extreme pain. Giving Beard the

benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this proceeding, he

has plausibly alleged that Nurse Cody was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical

needs when she denied him the prescribed pain medication and wheelchair, thus requiring

him to walk back to his dorm after leaving the medical room.

While recovering from his injuries, Beard made approximately forty (40) health care

requests stating that he was in pain and could not walk to the cafeteria, and asked to either

have his food brought to him or be permitted to stay in the infirmary. However, Nurse

Cartello refused Beard’s requests. As a result, Beard was required to walk to the cafeteria

to eat, which caused him excruciating pain and also caused him to miss meals. Giving

Beard the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this

proceeding, he has plausibly alleged that Nurse Cartello was deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical needs when she refused to address his health care request forms.

Immediately following Beard’s fall, Sergeant Stall took Beard’s identification tag

-4-
while the nurses took Beard’s vital signs. The tag was never returned. When Beard asked

what happened to the tag, Sergeant Stall told Beard he would have to purchase a new one. 

Because the tag had Beard’s personal and medical information on it, not having the tag

caused Beard to be denied insulin and certain meals for approximately two to three weeks.

Also, Beard was denied a medical check-up when Officer Moody, who knew about

Beard not having his identification, nevertheless refused to allow Beard to go to his medical

appointment without it. Prison officials do have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to

ensure inmates receive adequate food and medical care. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 832. Giving

Beard the benefit of the inferences to which he is entitled at the pleading stage of this

proceeding, he has plausibly alleged that Officer Moody was deliberately indifferent to his

serious medical need by not allowing Beard to go to his medical check-up and Sergeant

Stall was deliberately indifferent to Beard’s deprivations caused by taking his identification

badge.

Beard also claims his employer, Global, retaliated against him for getting injured,

by issuing him conduct reports and ultimately transferring him to another section of the

facility. Beard’s claims of retaliation could rise to a constitutional claim if the retaliation

was for Beard exercising a constitutional right. Perotti v. Quinones, 488 Fed. Appx. 141, 146

(7th Cir. 2012)(citing Lagerstrom v. Kingston, 463 F.3d 621, 625 (7th Cir. 2006)). However,

there is no constitutional right to work in prison. Armstrong v. Lane, 771 F.Supp. 943, 950

(C.D. Ill. 1991)(citing Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.

1150 (1983)). Thus, even though it is highly questionable and unprofessional for Global’s

-5-
supervisors to retaliate against him by issuing conduct reports and transferring him, that

does not amount to a constitutional violation.

Finally, Beard claims to have filed numerous grievances with Timothy Bean, but

complains that Bean has not processed them properly. Although Beard does not detail this

in his complaint, it is of no consequence. Prison grievance procedures “do not give rise to

a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763,

772 (7th Cir. 2008). As a result, Beard’s complaints about the grievance process do not state

a constitutional claim. Owens v. Hinsley, 635 F.3d 950, 953 (7th Cir. 2011).

For these reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against

Nurse Cody for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him adequate medical

care by withholding the prescribed pain medication and wheelchair;

(2) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against

Nurse Cartello for compensatory and punitive damages for denying him adequate medical

care by refusing to acknowledge Beard’s health care request forms regarding his ability to

walk;

 (3) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against

Sergeant Stall for compensatory and punitive damages for taking Beard’s identification

badge knowing that it would result in Beard being deprived medical care and food;

(4) GRANTS the plaintiff leave to proceed on an Eighth Amendment claim against

Officer Moody for compensatory and punitive damages for not allowing Beard to attend

-6-
a medical check-up;

(5) DISMISSES any and all other claims contained in the complaint;

(6) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285's for Nurse Cody,

Nurse Cartello, Sergeant Stall and Officer Moody to the United States Marshals Service

along with a copy of this order and a copy of the amended complaint (DE 4);

(7) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process on

Nurse Cody, Nurse Cartello, Sergeant Stall and Officer Moody; and

(8) ORDERS that Nurse Cody, Nurse Cartello, Sergeant Stall and Officer Moody

respond, as provided for in theFEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE and N.D.IND.L.R.10-1,

only to the claims for which the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in this

screening order.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 24, 2014. s/Philip P. Simon 

Chief Judge

United States District Court

-7-