United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
OPINION AND ORDER
D. PETERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff George Taylor, an inmate at Columbia Correctional
Institution (CCI), alleges that defendants failed to provide
treatment for his foot injuries. After screening his
complaint, Dkt. 1, I granted Taylor leave to proceed on
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims and state-law
negligence claims against several defendants. Dkt. 12. But I
concluded that he did not state a claim against defendant
Sergeant Paul, and I dismissed Paul from the case.
moves for reconsideration of my order dismissing Paul, Dkt.
13, and he submits a supplemental statement of facts. Dkt.
15. I will grant the motion, and I will allow Taylor to add
Paul as a defendant in the case.
alleges that Paul violated the Eighth Amendment and acted
negligently under Wisconsin law. The Eighth Amendment
prohibits prison officials from acting with deliberate
indifference toward prisoners' serious medical needs.
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103-04 (1976). To
state an Eighth Amendment claim, Taylor must allege that Paul
was aware of a serious medical need and consciously failed to
take reasonable measures to help him. See Duckworth v.
Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2008). To state a
negligence claim, Taylor must allege that Paul breached a
duty of care that he owed to Taylor. Paul v. Skemp,
2001 WI 42, ¶ 17, 242 Wis.2d 507, 625 N.W.2d 860.
says that he needs to wear orthotic shoes due to various foot
problems, but that Paul, the property sergeant at CCI, would
not allow him to order his prescribed shoes. In his original
complaint, Taylor alleged that in 2015, a doctor approved his
request to order shoes from an outside vendor that cost more
than $75 (the prison's normal price cap). He also alleged
that Dr. Syed approved him for a “third pair of shoes,
” but that Nurse Denise Valerius cancelled Syed's
order. When I screened Taylor's complaint, I concluded
that Taylor did not state a claim against Paul for denying
his request for orthotic shoes because Nurse Valarius had
already canceled the order, and because it was reasonable for
Paul to defer to the judgment of the prison's medical
now clarifies that Syed's order was not an order giving
him permission to buy new shoes. It was an order allowing him
to possess three different pairs of shoes at the same time.
He says that Valarius canceled the order allowing him to
possess three pairs of shoes, but she did not cancel the
older, “permanent order” allowing him to order
orthotic shoes form an outside vendor that cost more than
$75. Dkt. 15, at 1. According to Taylor, the previous
property sergeant allowed Taylor to order orthotic shoes in
compliance with this order. But when Paul became the property
sergeant in January 2018, he told Taylor that Taylor would no
longer be allowed to order orthotic shoes. Taylor says that
Paul had access to the standing order allowing him to buy
shoes but refused to follow it.
conclude that Taylor's supplemental allegations state
claims against Paul for deliberate indifference and
Wisconsin-law negligence. Based on Taylor's allegation
that Paul had access to the standing order allowing Taylor to
order outside orthotic shoes, I can infer that Paul knew that
Taylor's foot injuries were a serious medical need.
Paul's alleged refusal to follow the order show that he
was deliberately indifferent to Taylor's medical needs.
And Taylor's allegation that Paul refused his request to
order shoes that he needed for medical reasons is also
sufficient to state a claim that Paul breached a duty of
operative pleading will be Taylor's original complaint as
supplemented by Taylor's additional statement of facts.
The addition of Paul as a defendant in this case should not
affect Taylor's pending motion for a preliminary
injunction, and the parties should continue to brief that
motion as scheduled.
IT IS ORDERED that:
Plaintiff George Taylor is GRANTED leave to proceed on Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference and Wisconsin-law
negligence claims against defendant Paul.
attorney general's office may have until July 9, 2019, to
inform the court whether it accepts service on behalf of
operative pleading is Taylor's original complaint, Dkt.
1, as supplemented by Taylor's ...