United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
14, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff's Complaint.
(Docket #9). The Complaint alleged that Defendants failed to
appropriately treat Plaintiff's migraine headaches.
Id. at 3-4. The Court allowed him to proceed on the
theory that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Id. at 4-6. The Court later screened and accepted an
Amended Complaint which substituted various defendants, but
did not change Plaintiff's substantive claim. (Docket
#16). On January 12, 2018, Defendants moved for summary
judgment. (Docket #22). Plaintiff responded to the motion on
February 1, 2018, and Defendants replied on February 15,
2018. (Response, Docket #30; Reply, Docket #34). For the
reasons explained below, Defendants' motion must be
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that the court
“shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d
910, 916 (7th Cir. 2016). A fact is “material” if
it “might affect the outcome of the suit” under
the applicable substantive law. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute of fact
is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that
a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party.” Id. The court construes all facts and
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-movant. Bridge v. New Holland Logansport, Inc.,
815 F.3d 356, 360 (7th Cir. 2016).
following facts are material to the resolution of
Defendants' motion. The Court notes the parties'
disputes where appropriate. During the events of this
lawsuit, Plaintiff was first incarcerated at Green Bay
Correctional Institution (“GBCI”) and later the
Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (“WSPF”).
Defendant Steve Bost (“Bost”) worked as a
registered nurse at GBCI. Defendants Tonia Rozmarynoski
(“Rozmarynoski”), Michael Snodgrass
(“Snodgrass”), and Zachary Berger
(“Berger”) were correctional officers.
Rozmarynoski was stationed at GBCI, while Snodgrass and
Berger were employed at WSPF.
noted above, Plaintiff proceeds on claims related to the
treatment of his headaches. He identifies two dates of
allegedly deficient care: November 20, 2016 and December 16,
2016. Generally speaking, inmates with medical concerns must
fill out a request form (which Plaintiff calls a “blue
slip”) and submit it to the Health Services Unit
(“HSU”). Nurses review the forms on a daily
basis, and medical staff are available throughout the week to
provide immediate medical care. If an inmate has a medical
emergency, they can report it to correctional staff, who will
in turn contact HSU. HSU then determines whether the
situation is indeed an emergency, and what should be done
about it. Correctional officers defer to HSU's medical
judgment; they do not provide medical care to inmates.
to the dates in question, Plaintiff suffered a brain injury
which caused migraine headaches. A doctor ordered that
Plaintiff be given a Toradol injection at the outset of
migraine symptoms, at a maximum of five injections per month.
The doctor later clarified that Toradol was only to be used
for severe pain. Otherwise, Plaintiff was to be provided
Excedrin Migraine or Naproxen. Toradol is a controlled
medication that must be administered by medical staff, while
Excedrin Migraine and Naproxen are over-the-counter drugs
which inmates can possess themselves. Toradol is kept in
stock on a running basis; it is stored as a general supply,
not to fulfill any particular inmate's prescription
Court begins with the November 21 incident, which occurred at
GBCI. Rozmarynoski and Bost were on duty that
Bost received a call at approximately 6:00 p.m. from
Rozmarynoski, stating that Plaintiff reported a headache.
Bost asked Rozmarynoski about Plaintiff's symptoms to
determine his level of pain. Rozmarynoski informed Bost that
Plaintiff had recently been to the dining hall and back
without complaints or signs of pain. Further, Rozmarynoski
said that Plaintiff had not reported dizziness, nausea,
sensitivity to light, or vomiting, all of which might be
signs of a migraine. Plaintiff claims that he reported a
headache prior to going to the dining hall.
on these facts, Bost determined that Plaintiff's headache
was not severe and did not warrant emergency treatment. Bost
told Rozmarynoski to tell Plaintiff that he should submit an
HSU request form to be seen the next day. Rozmarynoski did
so. Plaintiff filled out the form and, according to
Rozmarynoski, did not report any further pain symptoms for
the remainder of November 21. Plaintiff says he was in severe
pain for the rest of the day and blacked out at one point. He
also claims to have asked Rozmarynoski again for a Toradol
injection, but was refused in light of the earlier call to
Bost and the pending HSU request. Plaintiff does not dispute
that he self-treated with Excedrin Migraine that night, and
was given a Toradol injection the next day, within
twenty-four hours of his original complaint.
was transferred to WSPF on November 29. His medical records
were sent with him. Toradol was not sent, however. As noted
above, it is a stock medication, and both GBCI and WSPF were
expected to have their own supply. Plaintiff's
prescriptions for Excedrin Migraine and Naproxen were filled
upon his arrival.
was working in Plaintiff's unit on December 16 (Snodgrass
did not work that day). Like Rozmarynoski, Berger's
practice is to log inmate medical complaints and contact HSU.
The log book contains no such entries for December 16. Berger
does not recall any specific interactions with Plaintiff that
day. In his own statement of facts, Plaintiff claims that he
told Berger multiple times that he was having a severe
headache, and that Berger variously ignored him or said he
would call HSU but never did. However, Plaintiff does not
dispute Defendants' proposed fact that the correctional
officer on duty did in fact call HSU. The HSU staff apparently
felt the situation was not serious and, like Bost, indicated
that Plaintiff should file an HSU request form. Plaintiff
would have had his over-the-counter medications available to
him at that time, in any event.
cites to grievances he filed as support for his claims. For
the November 21 incident, his grievance was accepted. The
complaint examiner determined that while Bost exercised his
medical judgment in declining a meeting with Plaintiff, he
should have seen Plaintiff face-to-face that day. With
respect to the December 16 incident, the complaint examiner
noted that HSU was out of Toradol, and in light of
Plaintiff's prescription, more ...