Bohlinger v. Neal
| Decision Date | 16 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-CV-588 DRL-MGG |
| Parties | JASON R. BOHLINGER, Plaintiff, v. RON NEAL et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Jason R. Bohlinger, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A the court must review the complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. The court bears in mind that “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed[.]” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Mr Bohlinger alleges that on July 31, 2019, [1] he got in an argument with Lieutenant Adrianne Gordon Ball about some of his personal property. Lieutenant Ball told him to “cuff up, ” or submit to being handcuffed, but he refused because Lieutenant Ball was planning to take all of the property out of his cell, including his mattress. He claims that “out of nowhere” Lieutenant Ball sprayed him in the face with chemical spray, causing him severe pain and burning in his eyes. He then submitted to being handcuffed.
Officer Batsel (first name unknown) and an unnamed officer arrived to escort him to a different cell. He claims they began to “pull and yank” on his handcuffs without warning. He states he turned around to ask why they were handling him so roughly, when they slammed him to the ground on his chest. While he was on the floor lying facedown and in handcuffs Lieutenant Ball allegedly ran up and slammed her knee into his face, breaking one of his front teeth. The three officers then proceeded to drag him down the hall “on his face ” causing him to break another tooth. He claims that he was pulled in this manner for approximately 50-75 feet. He further alleges that they would not allow him to take a shower even though he still had chemical spray on his face which caused considerable pain.
He was then placed in a “sealed-off box-car type cell” for 16 days by Captain Bootz (first name unknown), where he had no access to water, no hygiene items, and no eating utensils. He was not allowed to brush his teeth or wash his hands after going to the bathroom.[2] He states that he repeatedly complained about these conditions and asked Captain Bootz to be taken to the medical unit for his broken teeth, but the captain allegedly ignored him.
Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates cannot be subjected to excessive force. The “core requirement” for an excessive force claim is that the defendant “used force not in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887, 890 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Several factors guide the inquiry of whether an officer's use of force was legitimate or malicious, including the need for an application of force, the amount of force used, and the extent of the injury suffered by the prisoner. Id.
Here, Mr. Bohlinger admits that these events began when he refused an order from Lieutenant Ball to submit to handcuffs. “Inmates cannot be permitted to decide which orders they will obey, and when they will obey them.” Soto v. Dickey, 744 F.2d 1260, 1267 (7th Cir. 1984). Nevertheless, giving him the inferences to which he is entitled at this stage, he alleges that he was not physically resisting, and that she used more force than was necessary to gain his compliance by immediately spraying him in the face with chemical spray without any warning. He further alleges that Lieutenant Ball kneed him in the face when he was on the ground in handcuffs and broke his tooth, and that Officer Batsel threw him to the ground and dragged him on his face for 50-75 feet, breaking another tooth. He also alleges that these officers did not allow him to rinse the chemical spray off his face, which caused him considerable pain. Further factual development may show that the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, but he has alleged enough to proceed against Lieutenant Ball and Officer Batsel on a claim for excessive force.[3]
The Eighth Amendment also prohibits conditions of confinement that deny inmates “the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Although “the Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, ” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349 (1981), inmates are entitled to adequate hygiene and sanitation. Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009); Gillis v. Litscher, 468 F.3d 488, 493 (7th Cir. 2006). “Some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation in combination when each alone would not do so.” Gillis, 468 F.3d at 493. Additionally, “[a]n adverse condition of confinement, if endured over a significant time, can become an Eighth Amendment violation even if it would not be impermissible if it were only a short-term problem.” Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000, 1005 (7th Cir. 2016). On the subjective prong, the prisoner must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his health or safety. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834.
Here, Mr. Bohlinger alleges that for 16 days, he had no hygiene items or access to water, and could not brush his teeth or wash his hands after using the toilet. He further alleges that because he had no eating utensils, he had to eat with his hands during this period even though they were unclean. This combination of circumstances adequately alleges the denial of the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities. Mr. Bohlinger alleges that Captain Bootz was the one who put him in this cell and then ignored his complaints about these conditions. He will be permitted to proceed against Captain Bootz for denying him adequate hygiene and sanitation.
The Eighth Amendment also entitles inmates to constitutionally adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To state a claim, a prisoner must allege (1) he had an objectively seriously medical need and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to that need. Id. A medical need is “serious” if it is one that a physician has diagnosed as mandating treatment, or one that is so obvious even a lay person would recognize as needing medical attention. Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 653 (7th Cir. 2005). On the second prong, inmates are “not entitled to demand specific care, ” Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir. 2019), nor are they entitled to “the best care possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Rather, they are entitled to “reasonable measures to meet a substantial risk of serious harm.” Forbes, 112 F.3d at 267. “[I]nexplicable delay in responding to an inmate's serious medical condition can reflect deliberate indifference, ” particularly where “that delay exacerbates an inmate's medical condition or unnecessarily prolongs suffering.” Goodloe v. Sood, 947 F.3d 1026, 1031 (7th Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Dental care is one of the most important medical needs of inmates.” Wynn v. Southward, 251 F.3d 588, 593 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Maddox v. Jones, 370 Fed.Appx. 716, 719 (7th Cir. 2010). Among other things, untreated dental problems can lead to infection or affect an inmate's ability to eat. Wynn, 251 F.3d at 593; Farnham, 394 F.3d 480.
Mr. Bohlinger alleges that two of his teeth were broken, and that he requested several times to be seen by medical staff, but for 16 days Captain Bootz ignored his complaints, causing him pain and suffering. The complaint can be read to allege that his lack of access to a toothbrush or toothpaste during this period further exacerbated his dental issues. He will be permitted to proceed on claim against Captain Bootz for the denial of medical care.
Mr. Bohlinger also sues Josh Wallen, who appears to be the grievance officer at the prison. He alleges that this defendant failed to properly “process, review, and investigate” his grievances complaining about these events. The Constitution does not require that prisons provide a grievance procedure at all, nor does the existence of an internal complaint procedure create any constitutionally guaranteed rights. Daniel v. Cook Cty., 833 F.3d 728, 736 (7th Cir. 2016). Mr. Bohlinger does not allege, nor is there any plausible basis to infer, that the grievance officer caused the use of excessive force or the unsanitary conditions, or that he stood in the way of these issues being resolved by the responsible staff members. “The most one can say is that [he] did nothing, when [he] might have gone beyond the requirements of [his] job and tried to help him.” Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir. 2009). This does not state a claim under section 1983.[4]Id. Accordingly, the grievance officer will be dismissed.
Finally Mr. Bohlinger sues Warden Ron Neal as the top official at the prison. Liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is based on personal responsibility, and the Warden cannot be held liable for the misdeeds of other prison staff simply because he oversees operations at the prison. Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492, 498 (7th Cir. 2018); Burks, 555 F.3d at 596. Supervisory prison staff can be held liable for deliberate indifference if they “know about the conduct and facilitate it, approve it, condone it, or turn a blind eye.” Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652, 664 (7th Cir. 2019). There is no plausible basis in the complaint to infer that Warden Neal was personally involved in these events, that he knew the officers were using excessive force against Mr. Bohlinger or housing him in unsanitary conditions, or that he actively condoned or facilitated their actions....
To continue reading
Request your trial