UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

IAN L. RAWLS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CAUSE NO. 3:14-CV-1794 RM

v. )

)

LaPORTE COUNTY JAIL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Ian L. Rawls, a pro se prisoner, filed an amended complaint. “A document filed pro

se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must

be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, the

court must review prisoner complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Mr. Rawls’s complaint raises both medical treatment issues and financial issues.

Though his medical treatment issues state a claim, his financial issues do not. He says he

was charged when he was seen by healthcare workers. This doesn’t state a claim because

the Constitution does not require free medical care, Poole v. Isaacs, 703 F.3d 1024, 1027 (7th

Cir. 2012). He also says he was charged for medication that he didn’t want or need. Though

the Fourteenth Amendment provides that state officials shall not “deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” a state tort claims act that provides

a method by which a person can seek reimbursement for the negligent loss or intentional

depravation of property meets the requirements of the due process clause by providing
due process of law. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) and Wynn v. Southward,

251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Wynn has an adequate post-deprivation remedy in the

Indiana Tort Claims Act, and no more process was due.”). The State of Indiana provides

such a procedure, so the financial issues raised in this complaint don’t state a claim. 

Mr. Rawls also alleges that Nurse Sandy Harris and Dr. Walden Cooke denied him

medical treatment. He alleges that since he first notified Nurse Harris about his painful,

swollen finger on July 16, 2014, she prevented him from seeing the doctor for seventeen

days and refused to provide him with medical treatment. He alleges that when he saw Dr.

Cooke, the only treatment prescribed was to soak it in hot soapy water. He also alleges that

Dr. Cooke had previously cancelled various medications that he needed and was taking

before he entered the jail. 

At the time of these events, Mr. Rawls was a pre-trail detainee at the jail. “Although

the Eighth Amendment applies only to convicted persons, pretrialdetainees . . . are entitled

to the same basic protections under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

Accordingly, [courts] apply the same legal standards to deliberate indifference claims

brought under either the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.” Minix v. Canarecci, 597 F.3d

824, 831 (7th Cir. 2010). “For a medical professional to be liable for deliberate indifference

to an inmate’s medical needs, he must make a decision that represents such a substantial

departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate

that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson

v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

2
Prisoners are “not entitled to demand specific care[, nor are they] entitled to the best care

possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir.1997). Mere disagreement with a

medical professional doesn’t state a claim, Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir.

2003), and even medical malpractice and incompetence don’t state a claim of deliberate

indifference. Walker v. Peters, 233 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2000). “Whether and how pain

associated with medical treatment should be mitigated is for doctors to decide free from

judicial interference, except in the most extreme situations.” Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586,

592 (7th Cir. 1996). Though it’s unclear whether Mr. Rawls can ultimately prove that either

Nurse Harris or Dr. Cooke violated the Fourteenth Amendment, giving him the benefit of

the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage of the proceeding, he has plausibly made

such an allegation. 

Finally, Mr. Rawls names the LaPorte County Jail as a defendant. The Jail is a

building – it is not a suable entity. Cf. Sow v. Fortville Police Dep’t, 636 F.3d 293, 300 (7th

Cir. 2011). The LaPorte County Jail will be dismissed. 

For the foregoing reasons, the court:

(1) GRANTS Ian L. Rawls leave to proceed against Dr. Walden Cooke in his

individual capacity for compensatory damages for denying him medical treatment

by cancelling his needed medications in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; 

(2) GRANTS Mr. Rawls leave to proceed against Nurse Sandy Harris and Dr.

Walden Cooke in their individual capacities for compensatory damages for denying

3
him medical treatment for his painful, swollen finger in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment; 

(3) GRANTS Mr. Rawls leave to proceed against Dr. Walden Cooke in his

official capacity for injunctive relief to obtain medical treatment by healthcare

providers outside of the LaPorte County Jail; 

(4) DISMISSES all other claims; 

(5) DISMISSES the LaPorte County Jail as a defendant; 

(6) DIRECTS the clerk to transmit the summons and USM-285 for Nurse

Sandy Harris and Dr. Walden Cooke to the United States Marshals Service along

with a copy of the amended complaint (DE 12) and this order;

(7) DIRECTS the United States Marshals Service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d), to effect service of process on Nurse Sandy Harris and Dr. Walden Cooke;

and 

(8) ORDERS, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2), that Nurse Sandy Harris

and Dr. Walden Cooke to respond, as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and N.D. Ind. L.R. 10-1(b), only to the claims for which the plaintiff has

been granted leave to proceed in this screening order. 

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: November 13 , 2014 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge, 

United States District Court

4