Anderson v. Jeanpierre

1

JOHN MANN ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. CHERYL A. JEANPIERRE, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-C-270

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

April 12, 2023

ORDER

William C. Griesbach, United States District Judge

Plaintiff John Mann Anderson, who is representing himself, is proceeding on claims under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments in connection with allegations that Defendants denied medical care for his painful bladder condition retaliated against him for filing complaints about their denial of medical care, and terminated his participation in a pain management program without notice and hearing. Dkt. Nos 15 & 36.

On September 22, 2022, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment based on Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing this lawsuit. Dkt. No 46. That motion is fully briefed and ready for resolution. See Dkt. Nos. 47, 60, & 65. Since then, Plaintiff has filed two motions for a preliminary injunction, a motion to supplement, a motion for judgment on the merits, a motion for extension of time to reply to his motion for judgment on the merits, and a motion for an order to return all of his legal materials. Dkt. Nos. 67, 83, 96, 98, 100, & 101. This order resolves the pending motions, lifts the stay, and sets new deadlines for discovery and dispositive motions on the merits.

A. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

1. Undisputed Facts

Plaintiff is housed at Waupun Correctional Institution and was housed at Waupun at all times relevant to this lawsuit. He claims that (1) starting in November 2020, DOC Physician Supervisor Laura Sukowaty, Doctor Cheryl Jeanpierre, Nursing Supervisor Robert Weinman, Nurse Jessica Hosfelt, Nurse Whitney Pitzlin, Department of Corrections (DOC) Nursing Coordinator Paula Stelsel, and DOC Pharmacist John Tuten denied medical care for his Interstitial Cystitis; (2) in December 2020, Jeanpierre terminated Plaintiff's participation in the institution's pain management/chronic disease program without notice and hearing; (3) starting in February 2022, Jeanpierre, Weinman, Hosfelt, and Pitzlin falsified medical documents in retaliation for the many Health Service Requests Plaintiff filed about their denial of his medical care; and (4) in May 2022, Pitzlin gave him two conduct reports in retaliation for filing a lawsuit. Dkt. No. 37.

Plaintiff filed five inmate complaints related to these allegations. On December 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed inmate complaint #WCI-2020-22273. Dkt. No. 49-2. Plaintiff alleged, “On 12-1620 this doctor was deliberate indifference in termining my bladder pain medication. By lying as if I did not have any in my blood lab results (Gabapentin) at all.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff identified Jeanpierre as the only individual involved. Id. Plaintiff appealed through the proper channels and received a final decision on the merits on January 26, 2021. Id. at 7-8.

On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed inmate complaint #WCI-2021-55. Dkt. No. 49-3. Plaintiff alleged, “I was on a medication called Gabapentin. The above listed Doctor Jeanpierre kept on harassing me for blood draw every 2 days. For eight weeks. With a surgical invasive needle into my arm. And under threat to discontinue my med. If I do not allow her to continue to draw blood from me every 2 days. All this has been done only to check for Gabapentin intake.

Every 2 days by a surgical needle. This was clearly invasive intrusion: Done by harassment. This has caused my arm to be in a lot of pain.” Id. at 10. Plaintiff appealed through the proper channels and received a final decision on the merits on February 4, 2021. Id. at 7-8.

On February 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed inmate complaint #WCI-2021-1999. Dkt. No. 49-4. Plaintiff alleged that “Department of Corrections Medical Director Jane Doe,” and Jeanpierre were given information by another doctor that explained why Plaintiff's lab results may not have showed Gabapentin in his bloodstream even though he was properly taking the medication. Id. at 10-11. He alleged that they ignored that explanation and discontinued his prescription, claiming he allegedly “misused” the medication. Id. Plaintiff appealed through the proper channels and received a final decision on the merits on March 9, 2021. Id. at 7-8.

On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed inmate complaint #WCI-2022-3605. Dkt. No. 49-5. Plaintiff alleged that, on February 17, 2022, Hosfelt, Weinman, Stelsel, and John/Jane Does fabricated and falsified his medical records by claiming that Plaintiff refused to go to the Health Services Unit (HSU) following an off-site visit. Id. at 10, 12. Plaintiff appealed through the proper channels and received a final decision on the merits on March 22, 2022. Id. at 7-8.

Finally, on July 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed inmate complaint #WCI-2022-11241. Dkt. No. 62-1. Plaintiff alleged that Pitzlin falsified medical documents as retaliation for Plaintiff “complaining all the time for lack of medical care.” Id. at 5. He alleged that she was harassing him and hindering his access to medical care. Id. Plaintiff appealed through the proper channels and received a final decision on the merits on August 23, 2022. Id. at 11.

Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit on March 2, 2022. Dkt. No. 1. He filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2022. Dkt. No. 13. Plaintiff filed the currently operative second amended complaint on August 30, 2022. Dkt. No. 37.

2. Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). “Material facts” are those under the applicable substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute over a “material fact” is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. All reasonable inferences are construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Foley v. City of Lafayette, 359 F.3d 925, 928 (7th Cir. 2004). The party opposing the motion for summary judgment must “submit evidentiary materials that set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932, 937 (7th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). “The nonmoving party must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Id. Summary judgment isproperly entered against a party “who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to the party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Parent v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 694 F.3d 919, 922 (7th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations omitted).

3. Analysis

Defendants assert that Plaintiff failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies for his deliberate indifference claims against Weinman, Hosfelt, Pitzlin, Stelsel, and Tuten and his retaliation claim against Pitzlin. “[N]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). “The primary justification for requiring prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies is to give the prison an opportunity to address the problem before burdensome litigation is filed.” Chambers v. Sood, 956 F.3d 979, 983 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing Woodfordv. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 93-95 (2006); Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 995-96 (7th Cir. 2020)). The exhaustion requirement “protects the prison's administrative authority” by giving it an opportunity to correct its own mistakes before suit is filed against it in federal court. Schillinger, 954 F.3d at 995-96.

Wisconsin has established the Inmate Complaint Review System (ICRS) to review inmate grievances. Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 310.05. An inmate must file a complaint with the ICE within 14 calendar days of the relevant occurrence. Wis. Admin. Code §§ DOC 310.03(5) and 310.07(2). “A complaint must contain sufficient information for the department to investigate and decide the complaint.” § DOC 310.07(6). The inmate complaint “need not lay out the facts, articulate legal theories, or demand particular relief.” Strong v. David, 297 F.3d 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2002). But the inmate complaint must “alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress is sought.” Id. at 650. The inmate complaint must provide enough facts to give defendants “notice of, and an opportunity to correct, a problem.” Schillinger, 954 F.3d at 995-96 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Defendants assert that Plaintiff's inmate complaints do not contain sufficient factual allegations to give Defendants notice of any Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Weinman, Hosfelt, Pitzlin, Stelsel, and Tuten. Plaintiff asserts that he exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claims against these defendants through his February 4 2021 inmate complaint. But in that complaint, Plaintiff only complains that Jeanpierre and Sukowaty discontinued his prescription for Gabapentin; he does not complain about any other aspect of his medical care or the specific conduct of Weinman, Hosfelt, Pitzlin, Stelsel, and Tuten. As a result, the institution would not have known to investigate the conduct of the nurses who treated him (Weinman, Hosfelt, and Pitzlin), the DOC nursing coordinator (Stelsel), or the DOC pharmacist (Tuten). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Weinman, Hosfelt, Pitzlin, Stelsel, and Tuten, and those...