United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
JOHN L. DYE, JR., Plaintiff,
ERIC, DR. GAANAN, LOYDA LORIA, and DR. ANDRADE, Defendants.
D. PETERSON District Judge.
25, 2016, I held a telephone hearing regarding the
parties’ dispute over the authorization of the release
of plaintiff John Dye’s medical records in this case
and in plaintiff’s other recent case before this court,
no. 13-cv-284-jdp. This order pertains only to case no.
14-cv-76-jdp, in which defendants have filed a motion to
compel plaintiff to authorize the release of his medical
records or have the case dismissed. Dkt. 33.
major issue discussed at the hearing was the disclosure of
“mixed records” containing information about both
plaintiff’s physical and mental health problems. In the
’284 case, plaintiff is proceeding only on claims
regarding physical harm. But in this case, plaintiff’s
claims are not necessarily limited to physical health
problems. Plaintiff is currently proceeding with the
following claims related to his severe neck pain:
• Defendant therapist Eric ended plaintiff’s
therapy sessions for no reason.
• Defendant doctors Loyda Loria and Gaanan failed to
change pain medications or attempt further treatment after
plaintiff complained about the ineffectiveness of his
• Defendant Dr. Andrade, a psychiatrist, would not treat
plaintiff or allow him to get help from others.
See Dkt. 21.
neck problem is a physical one that, at first glance, could
be treated the same way as plaintiff’s hand problems in
the ’284 case: mental health components of
plaintiff’s WRC records could be removed from the
records that are released to defense counsel. But there are
two reasons that this solution may not work for this case.
defendant Andrade is a psychiatrist, so it is possible that
records concerning her treatment of plaintiff will contain
mental health information intermixed with information
regarding her treatment of plaintiff’s neck problem.
plaintiff seeks leave to proceed with claims directly
involving mental health treatment. I stated the following in
screening plaintiff’s second amended complaint:
Plaintiff has also filed a motion for injunctive relief,
stating that Andrade has been transferred to the Waupun
Correctional Institution and has retaliated against plaintiff
by discontinuing one of plaintiff’s psychotropic
medications. Plaintiff wants the court to intervene in his
psychiatric treatment by reinstating the provision of his
medication or by removing Andrade as his psychiatrist. I
cannot address the merits of plaintiff’s motion because
he is not proceeding on claims regarding Andrade’s
psychiatric care in this lawsuit. Because plaintiff could
include such a claim in this lawsuit under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 18, I will give him a short period of time to
supplement his complaint with this claim.
Dkt. 21, at 4. Plaintiff responded to that order with a
motion for an extension of time to file his response, Dkt.
26, and a supplement to his complaint. Dkt. 27. I will grant
plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time and
consider his supplement.
supplement, plaintiff alleges that defendant
Andrade was transferred to the Waupun Correctional
Institution at roughly the same time that plaintiff was, and
after plaintiff expressed his desire not to be treated by
Andrade while he was pursuing a lawsuit against her, Andrade
discontinued one of his psychotropic medications, Depakote.
Plaintiff’s claim could be viewed as either a First
Amendment claim against Andrade for cutting off the Depakote
after plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her and complained
about her ongoing care, or an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim because Andrade chose to discontinue the
medication for vindictive reasons. Either way, I conclude
that plaintiff has stated a claim against Andrade and so I
will allow him to proceed against Andrade under both
also seeks to bring claims against several defendants (the
WRC director and other health care staff) already dismissed
from the complaint. Plaintiff says that he wrote them letters
about doctors Loria’s, Gaanan’s, and
Andrade’s treatment. But plaintiff does not suggest
that he sought these defendants’ help though formal
complaint channels, and he does not suggest that any of them
had the power to countermand medical decisions made by the
defendant doctors. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d
592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[P]risoner’s view that
everyone who knows about a prisoner’s problem must pay
damages implies that he could write letters to the Governor
of Wisconsin and 999 other public officials, demand that
every one of those 1, 000 officials drop everything he or she
is doing in order to investigate a single prisoner’s
claims, and then ...