Defendant's Attorney: Daniel Noah Robins, James Robinson, Edward M. Brener
Description:
Chicago, Illinois civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued on a prisoner civil rights Eight Amendment violation theory.
This case involved the rare intersection of the Eighth Amendment and "Air Jordan" basketball shoes. According to the amended complaint, Plaintiff Andrew Coe is paralyzed below both ankles and cannot walk easily without leg braces supported by firm, high-top shoes. Starting on September 26, 2014, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Stateville Correctional Center in Joliet, Illinois. Upon arrival, doctors from Wexford Health Sources, Inc. issued him a permit for braces and high-top shoes. Id. Plaintiff happened to be wearing high-top leather Air Jordans, and was allowed to keep those shoes for the time being.
On October 15, 2014, Defendant Dr. Stephen Ritz "refused to prescribe high-top shoes for Plaintiff"—a decision that Plaintiff contends was erroneous. On November 19, 2014, correctional officers Defendants Darrin Atkins and Brandi Walker confiscated Plaintiff's Air Jordans. Coe was not left shoeless. Instead, he was given prison-issue shoes, but Plaintiff alleges that these shoes "did not support his braces and hold them in place." Plaintiff ultimately slipped out of those replacement shoes, and injured his feet—once on November 19 (injuring his right pinky toe) and again on December 10 (injuring the second digit on his left foot). He does not elaborate on the nature of his injury or the treatment he received.
Plaintiff discusses two of his prior shoe-related medical recommendations from Wexford and the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") to show this was error. He alleges that, in 2003, Wexford recommended that he be allowed to wear "tennis shoes" [29, ¶ 11], and, on October 9, 2014, an IDOC physician found that he needed "well cushioned and arched walking shoes." Id. ¶ 15. Neither really describes a pair of "high-top leather 'Air Jordan' basketball shoes." Id. ¶ 12. Tennis shoes are typically low-top. Air Jordans are not the quintessential arched walking shoe. Nevertheless, at this primary stage, the Court construes these recommendations to support the need for a firm high-top shoe.
The amended complaint contains two other allegations of note. First, Plaintiff alleges that on November 19, after his injury, an unidentified IDOC doctor told Defendants Atkins and Walker that Plaintiff "needed the 'Air Jordans' or equivalent high-top firm shoes, but they ignored that directive." Id. ¶ 14. Second, Plaintiff alleges that two correctional officers—Defendants Lorient Stanback and Damian Bragg—intentionally delayed seeking medical attention for Plaintiff's December 10 injury for "an hour-and-a half" while Plaintiff was "screaming in pain." Id. ¶¶ 17, 45-46.
Plaintiff filed a four-count complaint [29], asserting Eighth Amendment claims for intentional interference with treatment against Officers Atkins and Walker (Count I), refusal to provide treatment against Dr. Ritz (Count II), intentional interference with treatment against Officer Stanback (Count III), and intentional interference with treatment against Officers Stanback and Bragg related to Plaintiff's December 10, 2014 injury (Count IV). Defendants Atkins, Walker, and Bragg moved to dismiss the specific claims asserted against each of them in Counts I and IV.
* * *
Correctional officials and health care providers may not act with deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976); Fields v. Smith, 653 F.3d 550, 554 (7th Cir. 2011). "Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of a prisoner constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain forbidden by the Constitution." Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Deliberate indifference has both an objective and a subjective element: the inmate must have an objectively serious medical condition, and the Defendant in question must be subjectively aware of and consciously disregard the inmate's medical need. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994); Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103-04; see also Roe v. Elyea, 631 F.3d 843, 862 (7th Cir. 2011).
Outcome: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' partial motion to dismiss [44] Counts I and IV. Plaintiff is given until June 16, 2017 to file an amended complaint. Dated: May 15, 2017
Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants Defendants' motions for summary judgment 200 203 . Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/6/2024. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 08/06/2024)
08/06/2024 223 ENTERED JUDGMENT on 8/6/2024. Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 08/06/2024)
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: