Aft e r e x a mi n i n g th e p a rt i es ’ b r i e f s a n d th e r e c o r d, we  have c onc l uded th ator al ar gum en ti s unn ec es s ar y. Thus , the app eal i s subm it ted on the br ie f s and the rec ord. S ee F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 4 (a )(2)(C ). 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 2903 P ETER P OO LE III, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. D EBB IE I S AAC S, etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 09 -10 70 -GPM

— G . Patri ckMu rp hy, Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED N OVE MBE R 29, 2012

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 28, 2012 

Befo re E A S T E RB RO OK, C hief Ju dg e, an d W OO D a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. Pe ter Poole, an I ll inois prisoner, fi rm l y b el i eve s that a requi re d $2 co

- paym ent for denta l c a r e furni s he d a tthe Bi gMudd y R i v e r Co r r ect i o na l Ce nt e r v i o l a t e s h i s r i g ht s und e r th e Ei g hth Am e nd

-2 N o. 11

- 2903

m ent t o the federa l Consti tuti on. A fte r a le ngthy peri od d u r i n g wh i c h h e r e fu s e d t o ma k e th e p a y men t, he fi na ll y cap it u la ted and prom p tly r eceived the n eces sary c a r e . La t e r, h o we v e r, h e fi l e d thi s ca s e u nd e r 4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 983 aga i nst s eve ra l pri son offi ci al s, as ser ti ng that h i s co ns t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s h a d b e e n v i o l a t e d

. P o o l e ’ s c o mpl aintfr i vo l o us l y a cc us es th e defen dan ts o f“ co m m i tt i ng st ro n g a rm ro b b er y” ag ain st a “ c ap tiv e m ar ke t o f inm at es .” Af t e r s c r e e ningthe c o mpl a i ntas requi r e d b y 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 A, th e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d P o o l e ’ s c l a i ms aga i nst s eve ra l defend an ts w i th prej ud i ce, but i t a l l owed th e a c t i o n t o p r o c e e d a g a i n s tD e b b i e I s a a c s , th e h e a l th

car e a d m i ni str ato r at BigM ud dy, bec ause Pool e a l l ege d that he “di dn ’ t have an y m oney ” f orthe co- paym ent. T ha t all egation w as false, and thu s after discove ry the di str i ct c ourtgr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forI saac s. Pool e a pp eal s. Mo s to fth e ma t e r i a l e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d wi th th e s u mma r y j ud g me n tmo t i o n s w a s u n d i s p u t e d

. A tth e t i me Po o l e was i nc ar ce r at ed atBig M ud dy, he ha d s er i o us dentalpro bl em s. H e had a ro uti ne exam i nati on with a d en tis t o n Sep te m b er 17, 2 0 0 7 . Or d in ar ily h e w ou ld have had to w ai t tw o yea rs f ora new exam , bu t on J uly29 , 2008 , he was e xam i ned by Dr. M al chare k, w h o i s a denti st em plo yed byW exf or d H eal th S er vic es , a pri vate co m pan y tha t fur ni sh es he al th car e se r vi ce s atthe p r i s o n . D r . Ma l c h a r e k( wh o wa s n o tn a me d a s a de f en dant) note d fr om Poo l e’ s dentalchar t th at on an ea rl i er o cc as i o n a c o l league ha d r ec o m m en ded ex tr ac tingo ne too th and fi l l i ng two o ther s. Dr. M alc h arek offer ed to schedule tho se proce du re s, b u t Pool e ba l ked wh en to l d tha t he fi r stha d t o a utho r i ze wi th dr aw al oftheN o. 11

- 2903 3 $2 co -p ay m en t fro m h is in m at e t r u st ac c ou n t. P oo le co m pl aine d t o he al th ca r e admi ni st r at o r I sa ac s ab o utthe ne ed to pay ; I sa ac s was r es po ns ibl e for m oni to r i ng W exfor d’s com pli ance with adm i ni str ati ve dir ecti ves gov er ni ng m edi calcar e. I n Pool e’ s o pini on, the J uly20 08 vi si t s houl d have be en ca teg or i zed as a f ol low -up to th e Se ptem ber20 07 appoint m ent; i fthatwere cor re ct, the 2 008 vis it w oul d have be en exem pt fro m the co- paym ent re quir em ent. Se e 730 I LC S 5/3- 6- 2( f ) ( 2006 ) . I ssa cs, h ow ev er , agr ee d w ith D r. M alc h ar ek th at th e 2 00 8 v isit wa s n o ta f o l l o w- up a nd tha tp a y men twa s r e qu i r e d. Po o l e ha d m ore t ha n e no ug h mone y i n h i s trus t ac co unt to c o ve r tha t m od es t su m , b utr athe r tha n pa y, he d ec lin ed tr eat m ent a nd fi l ed a g ri evance ag ai nst I saac s and the W exf or d dentis ts. B y r efusi ng to pro vi de fre e dentalcare, P oo l e a rgued, they had caused hi m to suf f e r h e a da c he s a s we l l a s e xt r e me t o o th pa i n that m ade e at i ngdi ffi cul t. Hi s g r i evanc e was de ni ed, a nd th e dec i si o n w as uphe l d thr o ug h b o thl ev el s o fa dm i nist ra tiv e a p p ea l. The gr i evance pro cess was com ple te i n A pri l 20 09, buta fte r tha t, Po o l e r es ta rted th e cy cl e. I n Jul y 2 00 9 he w as exam i ned by D r. D en ni s M eye rs , wh o agr eed with Dr. M al chare k that workneeded to b e d one, and al so th at it co u ld n otp ro c ee d w ith ou t a co -p ay m e n t . P oo le sti l l h ad adequate fund s in hi s t rustacc ount, but f or se ve ra l m on th s h e c on tin u ed st u b b o rn ly to m ain ta in th at h e w as ex em p t fro m th e c o-p ay m en t. Fin ally , in October20 09, he a uthor i zed the w i thdrawal of the $2 and rec ei ved tr eat m ent. P oo le t h en su ed . H e n am ed as d e f e n d an ts n oton ly I sa ac s buta l so W ex f o r d, the war dena t Big M ud dy, a nd4 N o. 11

- 2903 th e d ire c to r of t h e D ep a r t m e n t o f C or re c tio n s. (P oo le als o n am ed D r. M ey er s bu t volu n ta rily d ism iss e d h i m .) T h e d ist ric t co u rtrec ru ite d co u n se l to a ss istP oo le in l i ti g at i nghi s cl ai m a g ains t I saac s, b uti t di smi ss ed th e ot h er d efe n d an ts be c au se P oo le fa iled to alleg e t h eir person al i nvol vem ent in the al l ege d denialo fcar e. Later the dist ri ct cour t gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent t o Isaa cs, r ea so ni ngth at th e co - pay m en t pl anwas no t unc o ns ti tu
tio n al, an d ev en if it w as , I sa ac s w as en tit led t o qu alifi ed i m m uni tyb ec au se s he a ct ed r ea so nably give n the l aw atthe ti m e. Underthe r egul at i o n in f o r ce dur ing th e r el ev an t peri od, th e Depart m ent o fCor re cti ons typi cal l y r equi re d a $ 2 co-p ay m ent ( now $5 ) fro m i nm ate s whose t rust
fu n d b a l a n c e w a s $ 2 o r g r e a t e r e i th e r a tth e t i me m edi ca l s er vices wer e pr o vi ded o r dur i ngthe pr ec eding 60 days (“ors i nc e ar r i va l a t th e o ffen der ’ s cur r en t f a c i l i t y, wh i c he v e r o c c ur r e d mo s tr e c e nt l y ” )

. S e e 7 3 0 I LCS 5/3-6-2(f ) (2006); 730 ILC S 5/3-6- 2(f) ( 2010 ); I LL . A D M IN . C ODE , ti t. 20 , § 415. 30( g) ( 3) ( 2007 )

. Poo l e co ncedes that h e w as abl e t o pay thatam ount. H e a l so see m s t o ackno w l edge that th e Ei ghth Am endm ent doe s no t com pel pri son adm i ni str ato rs to pro vi de cos t- f re e m edi calse rv i ces to inm ate s who ar e abl e t o contr ibute to the c osto fthei r car e. I n f a c t, that pr o po s i t i o n i s b y n o w we l l e s t a b l i s he d. I n C ity of Rev ere v . M assachus et ts General Hospit al, 463 U
. S. 239 (198 3) , the Suprem e Cour t l oo ked ato ne as pect o f the quest i on. The speci fi c is su e bef or e the Courtwas w hethera sta te enti ty ( ther e a m u n icipal i ty) co uld beN o. 11

- 2903 5

com pel l ed to r ei m burse the provi der o fem erge ncy m edi ca l s er vi ce s. The s ta te s upr eme c o ur t he l d tha t th e answ erwas ye s; otherwis e, i t fear ed, per sons i n pol i ce custo dy m i ght b e deni ed neces sar y s er vi ces i n vi ol ati on ofthe Eighth A m endm ent. The S up re m e Cour t be gan by noti n g th at the r el evantco nsti tuti onalpro vi si on f or th is situati o n was the Due Pr o ce ss Cl au se , no t th e Eighth A m endm ent. U l ti m ate ly i t hel d that “ as l ong as the g o ve r nm en ta l en ti ty en su r es th at th e m edi ca l care needed i s in f act p ro vid ed, the Consti tuti on does not dict ate how the co st ofthatcar e s hou ld b e all oca ted as between the enti ty and the pro vi der o fthe car e. ” 4 63 U. S

. a t 24 5. I n a f o o tn o te, th e C o ur t r es er ve d the questi on now bef or e us: “N othi ng we sa y h er e a ffects any r i ght a hos pit alo r go ver nm entalenti ty m ay have to re cove r from a d eta i nee the co st ofthe m edi cal ser vi ces provi ded to hi m . ” Id. n. 7. Other cour ts have tak en the next s tep, however

. Fo r ex ampl e, i n R ey no lds v . Wagn er, 128 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 19 97) , the Thi r d Ci r cui t squa r ely r ej ec te d the a r g um en t that “a prog ra m thatr equi re s that inm ate s with adequate r eso urces pay a s m al l por ti on o fthei r m edi cal c ar e” au to m at ica lly vio lat es th e C on st itu tio n . Id. a t 1 74; ac c or d , Til lm an v. Lebanon Cn ty. Co rr . Facil ity , 2 21 F. 3d 410, 41 8- 19 ( 3d Cir. 2000 )

. S ee al so Shap l ey v . Ne vada Bd. of St at ePr i s on Com m ’rs , 7 66 F. 2d 404, 40 8 ( 9th Ci r. 19 85); N egron v. G il le spie, 1 1 1 P
. 3 d 5 5 6 , 5 5 8

- 5 9 (Co l o . Ct

. App

. 20 05 ); M our ni ng v. Cor r e ct i onal M e d. Se r vs . , ( CM S) of St
. Lo ui s , M o. , 692 A .2d 52 9 , 5 3 9 (N .J. A p p . D iv. 19 97 ). In ou r v i ew, the se c as es a r e wel l r ea so ne d a nd c o ns i st en t w ith th e gen eral r ationale of C ityof R evere. W e th u s join6 N o. 11

- 2903

ou r fell ow cou rts in ho ld in g tha t the i m p ositi on of a m odest fee f orm edi calse rv i ces, st anding al one , does n otvio lat e t h e C o n s tit u tio n . To th e e x te n t t h at P oo le is argu ing for som e form of per se unc o ns ti t u t i o n a l i t y, we r ej ec t hi s po si ti o n. And thi s i s no t a ca se i n which the re q u ire d p a ym en t e x c ee d s t h e in m at e’s res ou rc es . In f act, h ad Poo l e be en tr ulyi nd i gent, he woul d have been exem pt f ro m the re quir em ent. The I l l i noi s s tatute co nt ains a numbe r o fe xe m pti o ns fr o m the c o - pay m en t re q u ire m en t, in c lu d in g on e for p eo p le w ith ch ro n ic i l l ne ss es , one fo r f o l l o w-u p v i si ts , o ne f o r tho se meet i ng th e s ta tu te ’ s d e fin itio n of in d ige n c y, an d on e fo r j u ve n ile offenders. 73 0 I LC S 5/3- 6- 2( f )

. W e hav e no o c casi on ei therto co m m ent o n thes e parti cul arexem pti ons orto specul ate wh ethero ther s m i ght b e nee ded

. I t i s e nough to s a y tha tP o o l e wa s n o tde pr i v e d o fde nt a l s e r v i c es for rea so n s b ey on d h is c on tr ol. Pool e doe s, however, urg e that he shoul d have be en gi ven the be nefi t o fo n e of th ose exem pti ons: the one f or a f oll ow-up vi si t o rder ed by a physi ci an. But that i s j ust a s tat e- l aw questi on that c annot be purs ued und er § 1 98 3. E .g ., A lliso n v . S n yd er, 33 2 F
. 3d 1076 , 10 78- 79 ( 7th Cir

. 20 03) ( ci ti ng Pen nhu rs t St at e Sc h. & H os p. v. Hal de r m an , 46 5 U .S. 89 , 106 (19 84 )); M cM ulle n v . M ap l eS ha deTwp ., 643 F.3d 96, 101 (3d Cir. 2011). I sa ac s di d no t den y de nt alc ar e f o r Po o l e, no r i s sh e to b l ame fo r the de l ayi n t reatm en t. Po o l e ha d s uffi ci en t fund s in hi s t rustfund acc ount but opted to r efu se tr eat
m en t r a th e r th a n p a r twi th h i s mo n e y . E v e n th o u g h he w as i n p ain u n til h e re c eiv ed tre at m en t, th e d ela y inN o. 11

- 2903 7

re cei vi ng ca re was ofh is o w n m aking. Fo r that re aso n the di str i ct c ourt c or re ctl y r ule d that I saac s was enti tl ed to sum m ar y j u d gm ent in herf avo r and that Po ol e f ai l ed to sta te a cl ai m ag ai nst the o therdefendants. W e ha ve r ev i ewe d Po o l e’ s r emai ni nga r g um en ts , a nd no ne ha s m er i t. I nde ed, b o ththe o r i g i na l l aws ui t an d th i s appe ala r e so l ac k i ngi n mer i t th atthe y war r an t th e i m po si ti o n o ft wo s tr i k es unde r 2 8 U
. S. C

. § 1 91 5( g )

. The j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

12- 28- 12