Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Stechauner v. Offermann

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

December 16, 2019

MATTHEW C. STECHAUNER, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC OFFERMANN, Defendant.

          ORDER

          WILLIAM E. DUFFIN U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Plaintiff Matthew Stechauner initiated a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant correctional officer Eric Offermann violated his civil rights. The court screened the amended complaint and allowed Stechauner to proceed with a deliberate-indifference claim based on his allegations that Offermann purposely gave him a greater-than-prescribed dose of medication, which resulted in him being sent to the hospital. (ECF No. 16.)

         On November 21, 2019, Offermann filed a motion for summary judgment. About a week later, Stechauner responded to the motion and filed a motion to compel and a motion to appoint counsel. Then, on December 2, 2019, Stechauner filed his own motion for summary judgment. The motions are now fully briefed and ready for the court's decision.

         1. STECHAUNER'S MOTION TO COMPEL

         Stechauner moves the court to order Offermann to produce the medical records from his November 27, 2018 hospital visit. According to Offermann, he does not have the medical records Stechauner seeks, and he does not intend to order them unless necessary for trial. (ECF No. 39 at 2.) It appears that Stechauner could have obtained the records he requested by putting in a request for a file review at his institution, selecting the records he believed he needed, and paying $0.15 per page for copies. (Id.) Stechauner states that “he asked DOC for records to no avail, ” but it is unclear what he means by that. (ECF No. 34 at 2.) To the extent his institution prevented him from viewing his medical records, that is an issue he could have raised at his institution by filing an inmate grievance. Thus, the court will deny his motion.

         In any event, as will be discussed below, the court finds that Stechauner's claim fails as a matter of law, and the court cannot conceive of any information that would be contained in the hospital records that would affect that decision.

         2. THE PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         2.1 Relevant Facts

         The facts in this case are straightforward and largely undisputed. Stechauner is an inmate at Oshkosh Correctional Institution. (ECF No. 45 at ¶ 1.) Offermann is a correctional officer at Oshkosh. (Id. at ¶ 2.) On November 27, 2018, Offermann was handing out medication to inmates. (Id. at ¶ 3.) He gave Stechauner three Clonidine pills instead of the prescribed one Clonidine pill. (Id.) As a result, Stechauner was sent to the emergency room for complaints of chest pain and dizziness. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

         According to Offermann, he did not look closely enough at the punch card or at Stechauner's medication administration record. (ECF No. 25 at ¶ 4.) He asserts that the punch card contained three pills, and he believed that Stechauner was supposed to receive all three. (Id.) Stechauner asserts that Offermann did not look at the medication package or logbook at all-he “just popped 3 Clonidine pills in [his] hand on purpose.” (ECF No. 45 at ¶ 6.)

         Upon realizing his mistake, Offermann directed Stechauner to sit in the dayroom, and he called health services to talk to a nurse. (ECF No. 25 at ¶ 8.) She told him to send Stechauner to health services, which he immediately did. (Id.) Shortly thereafter, Offermann called his supervisor, who instructed him to write an incident report. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

         2.2 Summary Judgment Standard

         Summary judgment is required where “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 also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986); Ames v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 629 F.3d 665, 668 (7th Cir. 2011). When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court takes evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must grant the motion if no reasonable juror could find for that party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 255 (1986). “Material facts” are those under the applicable substantive law that “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.