Hall-Bey, Ervin v. Ridley-Turner, Evely , 233 F. App'x 572 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                      NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with
    Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted May 23, 2007*
    Decided May 23, 2007
    Before
    Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge
    Hon. JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
    Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
    No. 06-3172
    ERVIN R. HALL-BEY,                            Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                     Court for the Southern District of
    Indiana, Terre Haute Division
    v.
    No. 2:04-CV-69-RLY-WGH
    EVELYN RIDLEY-TURNER, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.                     Richard L. Young,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Ervin Hall-Bey, an Indiana state prisoner, brought suit under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     alleging that prison officials and medical staff were deliberately indifferent
    to his medical needs by denying him gym shoes from an outside vendor to alleviate
    his foot problems. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
    We affirm.
    *
    After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that
    oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the
    record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    No. 06-3172                                                                  Page 2
    The facts are generally undisputed. Hall-Bey is an insulin-dependent
    diabetic who was transferred to the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility in 2001.
    Between December 2001 and March 2004 he complained of various foot problems,
    including swelling, soreness, and blisters. In response to these complaints, he was
    examined by medical staff on more than 25 occasions. Beginning in 2002 Hall-Bey
    was treated by defendant Dr. Anwer Jaffri for a painful lump on his left foot. It is
    not clear whether the lump was related to Hall-Bey’s diabetes. Dr. Jaffri advised
    Hall-Bey to wear a soft-soled gym shoe, and Hall-Bey requested medical approval to
    purchase gym shoes from a vendor outside the prison. In his written orders for
    Hall-Bey’s treatment, Dr. Jaffri approved the request, though he specified that the
    purchase of shoes from outside the prison also must be approved by defendant Dick
    Brown, who was then a Unit Manager at the prison. There is some dispute whether
    Brown approved the request, but in any event Hall-Bey ordered Nike gym shoes
    from an outside source. The shoes, however, were confiscated because Hall-Bey
    violated the prison’s security policy requiring prisoners to purchase gym shoes
    through the commissary. Dr. Jaffri told Hall-Bey that the gym shoes available
    through the commissary were sufficient for managing his foot problems, but Hall-
    Bey persisted and ordered a second pair of gym shoes from an outside vendor.
    These shoes also were confiscated. Over the next two years Dr. Jaffri and the
    prison medical staff continued to treat Hall-Bey’s complaints of foot pain and
    irritation by providing insoles and arch cushions, prescribing antibiotics and pain
    medication, and referring him to a podiatrist, who diagnosed him with plantar
    fibromatosis and recommended using insoles and performing non-weightbearing
    exercises three to four times per week.
    The district court granted summary judgment for Dr. Jaffri, concluding that
    the totality of care he provided for Hall-Bey’s foot problems was constitutionally
    sufficient. The court also determined that prison officials Dick Brown, Joe Thomas,
    and David Bonner were entitled to summary judgment because there was no
    evidence that they acted with deliberate indifference in denying Hall-Bey’s request
    for outside gym shoes; their actions, according to the court, stemmed from
    enforcement of prison policy or miscommunication or, at worst, negligence. Finally,
    the court granted summary judgment to defendants Evelyn Ridley-Turner and
    Dean Rieger, as Indiana Department of Corrections officials, and John Mulroony, as
    Assistant Superintendent of the prison, because they merely responded to
    complaint letters and grievances, and had no causal link to Hall-Bey’s medical care.
    To succeed on a deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth Amendment,
    a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and a subjective component. First, he
    must demonstrate that his medical condition is “objectively, sufficiently serious.”
    Farmer v. Brennan, 
    511 U.S. 825
    , 834 (1994); Greeno v. Daley, 
    414 F.3d 645
    , 653
    (7th Cir. 2005). Then he must demonstrate that prison officials acted with a
    “sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Farmer, 
    511 U.S. at 834
    ; Greeno, 414 F.3d at
    No. 06-3172                                                                   Page 3
    653. To make this subjective showing, the plaintiff must establish that the
    defendants knew he faced a substantial risk of harm and that they disregarded that
    risk. Greeno, 
    414 F.3d at 653
    . Deliberate indifference “is more than negligence and
    approaches intentional wrongdoing.” Johnson v. Snyder, 
    444 F.3d 579
    , 585 (7th
    Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Medical malpractice or mere disagreement with a
    doctor’s medical judgment does not constitute deliberate indifference. Edwards v.
    Snyder, 
    478 F.3d 827
    , 831 (7th Cir. 2007).
    On appeal Hall-Bey generally challenges the district court’s conclusion that
    he did not establish the defendants’ culpable state of mind. He asserts that there is
    a disputed issue of material fact about whether deliberate indifference motivated
    the defendants’ refusal to grant his request to purchase gym shoes from an outside
    vendor. He seems to suggest that the defendants’ disregard resulted from their
    animosity for his having filed numerous complaints and lawsuits.
    We agree with the district court that Hall-Bey failed to offer evidence that
    would allow a jury to find the defendants deliberately indifferent to his medical
    condition. Hall-Bey cannot point to any evidence to contradict Dr. Jaffri’s medical
    judgment that his foot pain could be treated and managed through insoles, arch
    supports, soft-soled gym shoes from the prison commissary, medication, and
    exercise. Hall-Bey’s mere disagreement with his doctors’ recommended course of
    treatment is insufficient to salvage his claim. See Edwards, 
    478 F.3d at 831
    ;
    Greeno, 
    414 F.3d at 653
    . Hall-Bey also has not produced any evidence to
    substantiate his assertion that ill will motivated the defendants’ denial of his
    request for gym shoes from an outside vendor.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-3172

Citation Numbers: 233 F. App'x 572

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 5/23/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023