United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 14), GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. NO. 21) AND DISMISSING
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
plaintiff, who is representing himself, filed this lawsuit
under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the defendants HAD
violated his constitutional rights. On September 19, 2016,
the court allowed the plaintiff to proceed on his claim that
the defendants were deliberately indifferent to the risk that
he would overdose when they failed to grant his request for
crushed medication. Dkt. No. 8. The plaintiff filed a motion
for summary judgment in the fall of 2016. Dkt. No. 14. The
defendants filed their motion for summary judgment in March,
2017. Dkt. No. 43. Those motions are fully briefed. The court
will deny the plaintiff's motion and grant the
relevant times, the plaintiff was an inmate in the custody of
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, housed at the Waupun
Correctional Institution. Dkt. No. 31, ¶1. Defendant
Jeffrey Manlove was employed in the Health Services Unit
(HSU) as a physician; defendant Todd Callister was employed
in HSU as a psychiatrist; and defendant Bonnie Halper was
employed in the Psychological Services Unit (PSU) as a
Psychological Associate and Licensed Professional Counselor.
Id. at ¶2-4.
December 28, 2015, Callister consulted with the plaintiff
about his medication management. Id. at ¶15. At
the consultation, the plaintiff informed Callister that he
was doing better: Mirtazapine was helping his sleep, and he
had been eating regularly and exercising to relieve stress.
Id. at ¶16. The plaintiff stated that he would
like to stop taking Sertraline and try something else to
boost his mood; he was still experiencing periods of
depression lasting for a day or two. Id.
plaintiff denied thoughts of wanting to harm himself, but
expressed concern that, if his moods worsened, he would begin
to have such thoughts. Id. at ¶17. The
plaintiff did not ask to be placed on crushed medications,
nor did he make any statements to Callister about having
thoughts about overdosing. Id. Callister did not
have any other contact with the plaintiff until three months
later (March 22, 2016), when he had another appointment with
the plaintiff about his medication management. Id.
at ¶20. Despite the plaintiff's assertion that he
sent a letter to Callister asking to be placed on crushed
medications, dkt. no. 24, ¶5, Callister states that
he never received any letters from the plaintiff on that
topic, dkt. no. 31, ¶66.
January 14, 2016, Nurse Gwendolyn Vick (who is not named as a
defendant) forwarded a Health Services Request (HSR) form
from the plaintiff to defendant Manlove. Id. at
¶21. In the HSR, the plaintiff asked that his medication
be crushed because he was having thoughts of
overdosing. Id. at ¶22. That same day,
Manlove ordered that the plaintiff's prescriptions for
Naproxen, Mirtazapine, and Sertraline be crushed.
Id. at ¶26. Neither Callister nor Halper
received or reviewed the HSR, and neither of them
participated in Manlove's decision to order crushed
medication. Id. at ¶28, 29.
January 29, 2016, nursing staff informed Manlove that the
plaintiff was engaging in inappropriate behavior when nurses
delivered the crushed medication to his cell. Id. at
¶30. Specifically, nursing staff told Manlove that the
plaintiff was exposing his genitals and masturbating in front
of them. Id.
the plaintiff's behavior, Manlove decided to discontinue
his order for crushed medication; however, he first asked
that Nurse Gail Waltz (who is not named as a defendant) to
contact PSU to make sure the plaintiff was mentally stable,
and that discontinuing the crushed mediation order would not
pose a risk to the plaintiff. Id. at ¶32-34.
contacted Halper in PSU that same day, and informed her of
the plaintiff's behavior. Id. at ¶34.
Halper told Waltz that she would talk to the plaintiff and
tell him that his medication would no longer be crushed.
Id. at ¶35. Manlove understood that PSU agreed
that discontinuing his crushed medication order was
acceptable and appropriate. Id. Manlove discontinued
his order later that day. Id. at ¶36. Callister
had no involvement in the decision to discontinue the order.
Id. at ¶38.
or so later (on February 5, 2016), Manlove met with the
plaintiff about the plaintiff's complaints of lower back
pain and athlete's foot. Id. at ¶39. The
plaintiff did not ask that Manlove place him back on crushed
medication, nor did he make any statements to Manlove about
having thoughts of overdosing. Id. The plaintiff
asserts that he wrote Manlove to ask why he was taken off
crushed medication, id. at ¶40, dtk. no. 24,
¶6; however, the plaintiff does not indicate when he
wrote Manlove, nor does he attach a copy of the letter.
Further, there is no record of the letter in the
plaintiff's certified medical records, and Manlove
disputes that he ever received such a letter from the
plaintiff. Dkt. No. 31, ¶65. After the February 5, 2016
appointment, Manlove did not have any other contact with the
plaintiff prior to the plaintiff's attempted overdose on
February 25, 2016. Id. at ¶42, 65.
little over two weeks later (on Tuesday, February 23, 2016),
HSU received two HSRs from the plaintiff, dated on the prior
two days (February 21, 2016 and February 22, 2016).
Id. at ¶43. In both requests, the plaintiff
asked for an order placing him back on crushed medication.
Id. Nurse Gunderson (not a defendant) reviewed and
responded to the HSRs. Id. at ¶44. Gunderson
marked the first as “noted” and referred the
second to PSU. Id. at ¶45-46. Gunderson took no
further action, nor did she forward the HSRs to Manlove or
Callister. Id. at ¶47.
same day, PSU received two Psychological Service Request
(PSR) forms from the plaintiff, dated February 21, 2016 and
February 22, 2016. Id. at ¶48. In both PSRs,
the plaintiff asked to be placed back on crushed medication.
Id. Halper received and reviewed the plaintiff's
requests on February 23, and met with him that same day.
Id. at ¶49.
meeting, the plaintiff was alert and engaged, but said he was
really struggling and asked about a transfer to the Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility (WSPF); he stated that he had been in
segregation too long. Id. at ¶50. The plaintiff
asserts that he again asked to be placed back on crushed
medication. Id. at ¶60.
states that she showed the plaintiff empathy and compassion;
she explained to him that she understood that he was
struggling, and told him that anyone in the same
circumstances also would struggle with the environment.
Id. at ¶51. Halper noted that the plaintiff
smiled, and appeared to experience positive emotions even
though he was struggling. Id. at ¶52. She also
stated that his thoughts seemed logical and goal-directed;
the two discussed a referral to WSPF, and Halper told the
plaintiff that he could not get any more conduct reports and
he had to maintain a safe behavior before she could recommend
that he go to WSPF. Id. at ¶52-53. Unit staff
informed Halper that the plaintiff would be released from
segregation in April, as long as he did not receive any more
conduct reports. Id. at ¶58.
February 23, 2016 meeting was conducted cell-side, which is a
public environment. Id. at ¶54. Halper asked
the plaintiff if he could wait three days, until February 26,
2016, to discuss his concerns further in a more private
setting. Id. at ¶54. The plaintiff agreed, and
assured Halper that he was not having thoughts of self-harm;
Halper states that this led her to believe that the plaintiff
could maintain safe behaviors until their scheduled meeting.
Id. at ¶55, 57.
on her discussions with the plaintiff, Halper decided that
the plaintiff did not need to receive crushed medication.
Id. at ¶59. She determined that: (1) he was
capable of logical and organized thoughts; (2) he had no
thoughts, intent or plan to ...