Opinion ID: 2999434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: There are disputed issues of material fact as to

Text: whether any of the individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to Davis. The plaintiff has also presented enough evidence to create triable issues of fact regarding whether certain individual defendants were deliberately indifferent by failing to ensure that Davis received timely methadone treatment. To establish a claim for violation of Davis’s Eighth Amendment rights, the plaintiff was required to make two showings. Estate of Novack ex rel. Turbin v. County of Wood, 226 F.3d 525, 529 (7th Cir. 2000). “First, the danger to the inmate must be objectively serious, posing a substantial risk of serious harm.” Id., citing Haley v. Gross, 86 F.3d 630, 640-41 (7th Cir. 1996). The parties do not dispute that the plaintiff established this element. “Second, the prison official must have a sufficiently culpable state of mind—one of ‘deliberate indifference’ to inmate health or safety.” Id. 18 No. 05-1695 Deliberate indifference requires something more than negligence, but need not be a purposeful or knowing infliction of harm. Id. Deliberate indifference requires that a prison official subjectively know of and disregard a substantial risk of harm. Id. “ ‘Deliberate indifference’ is simply a synonym for intentional or reckless conduct,” and can be established indirectly through circumstantial evidence. Foelker v. Outagamie County, 394 F.3d 510, 513 (7th Cir. 2005). As discussed more fully below, the plaintiff has succeeded in providing sufficient competent evidence to allow a jury to make the decision of whether certain individual defendants engaged in reckless conduct with regard to Davis’s lack of medical care.
There are disputed issues of material fact as to whether Officer Collier and/or Sergeant Martin were deliberately indifferent. Specifically, Officer Collier admitted that a correctional officer or sergeant has the direct responsibility to contact the paramedics if an inmate is in need of medical attention. Yet in this case, there is a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether Officer Collier recklessly disregarded Davis’s medical needs when he failed to contact the paramedics or the 24-hour emergency room directly after he learned that Davis was “dope sick,” observed that Davis was suffering, and heard that “it felt like somebody was ripping [Davis’s] insides out.” See Foelker, 394 F.3d at 513 (holding that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant was recklessly or maliciously ignoring the plaintiff’s signs of methadone withdrawal). In addition, there are disputed facts about whether Officer Collier acted reasonably when he delegated responsibility to Bowers to contact the paramedics and ensure that Davis received prompt medical attention. As a result, a reasonable jury could conclude that Officer Collier intentionally or reckNo. 05-1695 19 lessly ignored Davis’s need for timely medical attention. Similar triable issues of fact apply to Sergeant Martin, since there is a disputed issue of material fact over whether Sergeant Martin held the ultimate responsibility for contacting the paramedics or the hospital to ensure that Davis received prompt medical attention. Officer Collier testified that he informed Sergeant Martin of Davis’s serious medical condition, but it is undisputed that Sergeant Martin failed to file an Unusual Incident Report or take any action to obtain medical treatment for Davis (or otherwise supervise and confirm that Davis’s medical needs were attended). In addition, Sergeant Martin claimed to follow a uniform policy of speaking directly with inmates who reported ill, but there is nothing in the record indicating that he spoke with Davis. Thus, taken together, the plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to determine whether Officer Collier and/or Sergeant Martin were deliberately indifferent. See, e.g., Sherrod v. Lingle, 223 F.3d 605, 612 (7th Cir. 2000) (reversing summary judgment, where plaintiff “presented evidence which might prove that the prison staff knew of and disregarded a serious risk to his health”).
Plaintiff has also presented sufficient evidence for a jury to determine whether social worker Bowers was deliberately indifferent. At the outset, there is a heated factual dispute as to whether Bowers actually contacted and spoke with the paramedics on Davis’s behalf. Bowers claims to have called the paramedics and to have spoken with someone at the paramedics station. Her log entry appears to support her claim. The paramedics and other emergency medical personnel deposed in this matter, however, either deny receiving such a call or have no recollection of it. In addition, there is no dispute that no paramedics or ERTs attended to James Davis on October 1, 2002. Thus, a 20 No. 05-1695 reasonable jury could find that Bowers failed to contact the paramedics as she claims to have done and failed to conduct the requisite follow-up with either Davis, the paramedics, or other correctional or medical personnel. These purported failures could constitute deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm that Davis faced. See Foelker, 394 F.3d at 513.
Plaintiff failed to raise any argument in her briefs pertaining to Lieutenant Mackey, and, as a result, has waived any challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lieutenant Mackey. See, e.g., Weinstein v. Schwartz, 422 F.3d 476, 477 (7th Cir. 2005) (failure to develop arguments constitutes waiver).
Hill The evidence raised by the plaintiff with respect to paramedics Westbrook, Patton, Moore and Hill is insufficient to survive summary judgment. Although there is a factual dispute over whether Bowers placed a telephone call to the paramedics, the plaintiff presents no evidence that could allow a jury to determine which of the paramedics—if any—received Bowers’s purported telephone call. The paramedics either deny or cannot recall receiving a call from Bowers, and Bowers cannot identify who answered the call, nor is there testimony from anyone else that could allow the jury to make a reasonable inference as to the identity of whomever answered Bowers’s alleged telephone call. Thus, although there is an evidentiary conflict over whether Bowers placed a telephone call, there is simply an evidentiary vacuum pertaining to the identity of the paramedic. And when the evidence provides for only No. 05-1695 21 speculation or guessing, summary judgment is appropriate. See Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., 47 F.3d 928, 931-32 (7th Cir. 1995) (holding that evidence leading only to speculation cannot be a defense to summary judgment); Morfin v. City of East Chicago, 349 F.3d 989, 1002 (7th Cir. 2003) (same).
The evidence presented with respect to Officer Yolanda Carter is also insufficient to create a jury question with respect to whether Officer Carter was deliberately indifferent. The plaintiff’s sole evidence was that Officer Carter purportedly received a telephone call from Mrs. Davis and that, after being informed that Davis had not yet received methadone treatment and was in excruciating pain, Officer Carter allegedly responded that “Cook County don’t work that fast. It don’t work that fast for me, and I work here. Maybe he’ll get something tomorrow.” Officer Carter then appropriately transferred Mrs. Davis’s call to a person responsible for Davis’s medical care, Lieutenant Mackey. There is no evidence in the record indicating that Officer Carter’s job duties included anything more than answering the telephones, and the plaintiff does not point to any evidence indicating that Officer Carter’s position included follow-up responsibility regarding Davis’s medical needs. As a result, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mrs. Davis, the most that can be shown is that Officer Carter made an insensitive comment to Mrs. Davis, but that otherwise is not enough for a jury to find that she was deliberately indifferent to Davis’s medical needs, particularly in light of the undisputed evidence that she promptly transferred Mrs. Davis’s call to the appropriate personnel. 22 No. 05-1695