United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
DAVID J. GRAUER, Plaintiff,
WARDEN LIZZIE TEGELS, TAMMY MAASSEN, DR. LILY LIU, DEBRA TIDQUIST, KRISTINE PRALLE, JODI DOUGHERTY and ANTHONY HENTZ, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
BARBARA B. CRABB DISTRICT JUDGE
plaintiff David Grauer filed a civil action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, contending that medical staff at the Jackson
Correctional Institution violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment by failing to provide him adequate medical
treatment for his diabetes. His complaint is before the court
for screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because I
conclude that plaintiff has failed to state any claim for
relief against defendants, I will dismiss this case.
alleges the following facts in his amended complaint.
is incarcerated at the Jackson Correctional Institution,
where defendants are employed: Lizzie Tegels is the warden,
Tammy Maassen is the health services manager, Debra Tidquist
is a nurse practitioner, Lily Liu is a physician, Kristine
Pralle and Anthony Hentz are nurses and Jodi Dougherty is the
inmate complaint examiner. Plaintiff is suing Tegels in her
had been receiving regular insulin for type 1 diabetes, but
it was discontinued on February 18, 2019. On February 21,
2019, plaintiff saw Dr. Liu and Tidquist, who told him that
his insulin was being discontinued because of misuse.
Although Liu prescribed metaformin as an alternative
treatment, plaintiff told Liu and Tidquist that it had not
worked for him in the past and made him sick.
filed an inmate complaint with Dougherty about the incident
on February 21, but she failed to investigate and rejected
the complaint because the issue had been raised and addressed
in a prior complaint. However, plaintiff did not file a
previous complaint with respect to this issue. Plaintiff also
filed an informal grievance with Maassen on April 28, 2019,
alleging that he had a history of type 1 diabetes and high
blood sugar levels and had submitted numerous health service
requests for regular insulin for his diabetes but Liu refused
to prescribe insulin because of “cost
considerations.” Maassen failed to do anything.
lack of insulin caused plaintiff to have severe neuropathy
and high blood sugar levels. After plaintiff continued to
file numerous complaints and health service requests,
Tidquist restarted plaintiff's insulin.
early May 2019, plaintiff's blood sugar level was high
(over 600). He asked correctional staff to inform the health
services unit. Pralle, who was on call, saw plaintiff and
gave him insulin. However, when plaintiff returned to his
housing unit, his blood sugar level was still high (478). (It
is unclear from plaintiff's allegations, but it appears
that Pralle may have given plaintiff another dose of insulin
on the same day or another day in early May.) On May 12,
2019, plaintiff was taking long-acting insulin in the health
services unit. He told Pralle that he was experiencing chest
pains. Pralle did not check his vitals, give him an
electrocardiogram or give him regular insulin, even though
plaintiff told her that he was at a high risk for a heart
attack or stroke.
30, 2019, plaintiff checked his blood sugar level. Because it
was high, plaintiff notified a correctional officer, who
called Hentz, the on-call nurse. Hentz asked to speak with
plaintiff over the telephone, but plaintiff refused to talk
to her. Hentz did not give plaintiff regular insulin and told
correctional staff that plaintiff would be ok until the next
morning. When Hentz called plaintiff to the health services
unit the next morning, plaintiff told him he was going to
file a grievance. Hentz said to go ahead because it would not
go anywhere. On July 8, 2019, plaintiff filed an inmate
complaint, alleging that Hentz denied him insulin even though
plaintiff's blood sugar level was high. Dougherty denied
the complaint because plaintiff did not follow the chain of
plaintiff has made a few other general allegations about some
of the defendants not providing him adequate medical care for
kidney pain and a broken wrist, I have not included them
because they are not related to his diabetes and plaintiff
does not say that he is attempting to bring a claim with
respect to any of these issues.
states that he that he is bringing Eighth Amendment claims
against defendants for failing to provide him adequate
medical care for his diabetes. A prison official violates the
Eighth Amendment if the official acts with “deliberate
indifference” to a “substantial risk of serious
harm” to an inmate's health or safety. Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). “Deliberate
indifference” means that the officials are aware that
the prisoner faced a substantial risk of serious harm or
“‘excessive risk to [the prisoner's] health
or safety, '” but disregard the risk by consciously
failing to take reasonable measures to prevent it. Gevas
v. McLaughlin, 798 F.3d 475, 480 (7th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837); Forbes v.
Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 266 (7th Cir. 1997). Inadvertent
error, negligence, gross negligence and ordinary malpractice
are not cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of
the Eighth Amendment. Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987,
992 (7th Cir. 1996).
to state a claim that defendants violated the Eighth
Amendment by denying him adequate medical care, plaintiff
must allege facts that: (1) he had a serious medical need;
(2) defendants knew that plaintiff needed medical treatment;
and (3) defendants consciously failed to take reasonable
measures to provide the necessary ...