Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Frieden v. Meli

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

February 29, 2016

NOAH HANS FRIEDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
TONY MELI, JESSIE J. SCHNEIDER, JOSEPH BEAHM, JESSE J. JONES, JEREMY L. STANIEC, SHANE M. WALLER, and KRISTINE A. DEYOUNG Defendants,

ORDER

LYNN ADELMAN, DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Noah Hans Frieden is proceeding pro se on Eighth Amendment claims against the defendants, including medical care claims against defendant Kristine DeYoung. Now before me is DeYoung’s motion for summary judgment. She argues both that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his claims against her and that his claims against her fail on the merits. Also before me is plaintiff’s request for appointed counsel.

I. Facts[1]

Plaintiff, Noah Hans Frieden, was an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution (Waupun) at all times relevant to this case. Defendant Kristine DeYoung is employed as a nurse at Waupun.

A. Facts Regarding Medical Care

After plaintiff’s incident with officers in June 2013, DeYoung conducted an examination of plaintiff at the strip cage. In the progress notes, DeYoung indicated that it was difficult to examine plaintiff because he was screaming and actively resisting. Nevertheless, plaintiff complained of left wrist pain, and DeYoung examined him. She noted some minor abrasions from handcuffs, tazer signature marks on plaintiff’s back, and a bruise or abrasion on plaintiff’s back.

On June 14 and 15, 2013, plaintiff submitted health service requests (“HSRs”) asking for an x-ray of his wrist. DeYoung saw plaintiff on June 17, 2013. She noted linear fading bruises on both wrists where handcuffs would have been. Other than that, she saw no hand or wrist deformity or discoloration. She did not order an x-ray of plaintiff’s wrist.

On June 19, 2013, plaintiff submitted an HSR asking for ointment, antibiotics, and something for pain and swelling. DeYoung saw plaintiff on June 20, 2013, noted one small scab that was healing well, and explained to plaintiff the wound healing process and proper use of antibiotics.

On June 28, 2013, plaintiff submitted an HSR stating that his hands and forearms were numb. DeYoung saw plaintiff on July 1, 2013, and he complained of numb hands and forearms every morning and pain in his wrist. Upon examination, she found no deformity and a range of motion within normal limits of handcuffs. She directed plaintiff to continue using ibuprofen as needed, work on his range of motion, and massage the area four times a day.

On July 6, 2013, plaintiff submitted an HSR saying he was still waiting for pain medication and medicated shampoo. DeYoung saw plaintiff on July 11, 2013, and the examination focused on medicated shampoo and plaintiff’s jaw. She made a note to check on ibuprofen delivery.

Plaintiff submitted an HSR on September 19, 2013, stating that his left arm and muscles kept twitching. DeYoung attempted to evaluate plaintiff during a sick call appointment on September 20, 2013, but plaintiff refused to be evaluated.

On December 19, 2013, plaintiff’s submitted an HSR that said his left wrist felt like a needle on the inside. DeYoung attempted to evaluate plaintiff during a sick call appointment on December 20, 2013, but plaintiff again refused to be evaluated.

Plaintiff submitted another HSR on December 21, 2013, saying that he was still experiencing off and on pain in his wrist. DeYoung treated plaintiff on December 26, 2013. She found him alert and oriented, in no acute distress, well-nourished, well-hydrated, and cuffed behind his back. Plaintiff’s range of motion was intact within the limits of the cuffs, and plaintiff denied a change or decrease in range of motion without cuffs on. He told her his main issue was intermittent pain. DeYoung conducted a thorough examination and instructed plaintiff on how to slowly work to strengthen the area. She advised plaintiff to avoid strenuous activity until his strength and mobility returns and told him to continue taking ibuprofen as directed.

B. Plaintiff’s Use of Inmate Complaint Review System

The Wisconsin Department fo Corrections maintain an Inmate Complaint Review System (“ICRS”). The purpose of the ICRS is to afford inmates a process by which grievances may be expeditiously raised, investigated, and decided.

On September 19, 2013, plaintiff submitted an offender complaint regarding the medical care provided after the incident with staff on June 13, 2013. In his ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.