Abdul-Wadood v. Nathan

• Decision Date: 02 August 1996
• Docket Number: P,Nos. 96-1074,ABDUL-WADOO,96-1296 and 96-1527,s. 96-1074
• Citation: 91 F.3d 1023
• Parties: Lokmar Y.laintiff-Appellant, v. Sylvester NATHAN, Defendant-Appellee. Lokmar Y.laintiff-Appellant, v. Conrado DELROSARIO and Adriane Jaggers, Defendants-Appellees. Lokmar Y.laintiff-Appellant, v. Todd KAMLEITER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1023

91 F.3d 1023

Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sylvester NATHAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Conrado DELROSARIO and Adriane Jaggers, Defendants-Appellees.

Lokmar Y. ABDUL-WADOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Todd KAMLEITER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 96-1074, 96-1296 and 96-1527.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted July 18, 1996.

Decided Aug. 2, 1996.

Lokmar Yazid Abdul-Wadood (submitted), Westville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Pamela Carter, Robert L. Collins, Office of the Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BAUER, EASTERBROOK, and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Lokmar Abdul-Wadood, a prisoner of Indiana, is a frequent filer. Last month we affirmed several cases he was pursuing, concluding that two of the appeals were frivolous and counted toward the three "strikes" allowed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub.L. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (Apr. 26, 1996). After losing three cases for one of the enumerated grounds, which include frivolousness, a plaintiff must prepay the docket fee for filing a complaint or taking an appeal, unless he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), added by § 804(d) of the new statute. Abdul-Wadood had at least five other cases on appeal at the time we warned him about the consequences of frivolous litigation. He did not withdraw any of the five appeals. Today we affirm in three more, all of them frivolous. The allowed strikes now are exhausted.

In appeal No. 96-1074, Abdul-Wadood contends that Sylvester Nathan, a prison physician, violated the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the eighth amendment by administering inappropriate treatment for an attack of sickle cell anemia, an incurable condition from which Abdul-Wadood suffers. When Abdul-Wadood complained of pain, Dr. Nathan first gave him ibuprofen; pain continued, and Dr. Nathan prescribed increasingly strong pain medicine, culminating in Tylenol No. 4, which brought relief. The prison hospital also administered intravenous fluids. Given the strict standards of Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), and Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976), the district court properly granted summary judgment to Dr. Nathan. Abdul-Wadood's disagreement with the selection of medicine and therapy falls well short of demonstrating deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Malpractice does not violate the Constitution, and we doubt that this treatment could even be called negligent.

In appeal No. 96-1296, Abdul-Wadood contends that Conrado Delrosario, another prison physician, and Adriane Jaggers, a nurse, violated the cruel and unusual punishments clause by providing inappropriate treatment for an elbow injury he sustained while exercising. Abdul-Wadood decided that his pain marked the start of a sickle cell crisis and demanded ibuprofen, suing when he did not get it. (Note the nimble change of position: when Dr. Nathan started with ibuprofen for a sickle cell episode, Abdul-Wadood called that cruel and unusual.) Dr. Delrosario concluded that Abdul-Wadood exhibited none of the signs of a sickle cell crisis and prescribed an analgesic and an anti-inflammatory agent. For all this record reveals, the diagnosis and treatment were exactly right; there was no constitutional problem.

In appeal No. 96-1527, Abdul-Wadood contends that several prison officials violated the due process clause of the Constitution by fining him 50 cents, issuing a reprimand, and suspending his commissary privileges for his repeated improper possession of string (which can be used as a garrote) and torn socks. It has long been clear that such minor steps do not implicate any liberty or property interest, see Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9, 97 S.Ct. 274, 279 n. 9, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976), a conclusion fortified by Sandin v. Conner, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). Summary judgment was wholly proper; indeed, the complaint is preposterous and fails to state a claim on which relief can be based.

All three of these...