Hildreth v. Kim Butler, Lori Oakley, & Wexford Health Sources, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 18-2660,18-2660
• Parties: Scott HILDRETH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kim BUTLER, Lori Oakley, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

960 F.3d 420

Scott HILDRETH, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Kim BUTLER, Lori Oakley, and Wexford Health Sources, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-2660

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued September 19, 2019

Decided May 19, 2020

Benjamin G. Minegar, Attorney, JONES DAY, Pittsburgh, PA, Rajeev Muttreja, Attorney, JONES DAY, New York, NY, for Plaintiff - Appellant.

Aaron Talen Dozeman, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants - Appellees KIMBERLY BUTLER, LORI OAKLEY.

Abbey A. Fritz, Timothy Charles Sansone, Attorneys, SANDBERG PHOENIX & VON GONTARD P.C., for Defendant - Appellee WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.

Before Sykes, Hamilton, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Brennan, Circuit Judge.

Scott Hildreth, an inmate at an Illinois maximum-security prison, suffers from Parkinson's disease. He takes a prescription medication distributed by the prison three times a day to manage his symptoms. On three occasions Hildreth received his medication refill a few days late, causing him to experience withdrawal symptoms. His symptoms also render his handwriting illegible, so Hildreth uses a typewriter to draft documents. He requested to keep that typewriter in his cell, which the prison denied because it was considered contraband. Instead, the prison provided Hildreth with an assistant to help him draft documents and increased access to the library where he can use a typewriter.

Feeling his treatment was lacking, Hildreth sued Wexford Health Sources, Inc. and two jail administrators under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. , alleging they violated his constitutional and statutory rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Because Hildreth has not shown medication delays were a widespread practice or custom at the prison, and he received reasonable accommodations for his Parkinson's disease, we affirm the district court's decision.

I. Background

A. Delays in Hildreth's Medication

Hildreth's Parkinson's disease causes him to lose his balance, move uncontrollably, and occasionally fall. To alleviate these symptoms, a prison doctor prescribed Mirapex, which Hildreth contends made a "day and night" difference. As a specialty prescription, Mirapex was not kept in stock at the prison; instead, it was filled by an outside pharmacy. The prison allows Hildreth to keep a monthly supply of 90 Mirapex pills in his cell.

To refill his prescription, Hildreth must submit a refill sticker within seven days of the end of the prescription to a nurse, who takes it to an outside pharmacy. Hildreth usually receives his refill when he has three to five days of medication left.

According to Hildreth, his prescription refill was delayed "at least three times," causing him to experience withdrawal symptoms within a day or two. In each instance, he informed his gallery officer, who instructed him to tell the nurse. The nurse often told him to wait and see if the prescription would arrive on time. When his medication was late, Hildreth would file a grievance. For two of the three grievances, Hildreth received his medication within a few days of his prescription lapsing. Wexford's medical director, Dr. Roderick Matticks, testified the third lapse occurred in part because Hildreth failed to attend the chronic clinic, where a Wexford physician evaluates chronically ill inmates to assess their condition and whether prescriptions should be continued. Dr. Matticks was aware of these two or three instances in which Hildreth "had some perceived delays in obtaining refills on his medications."

B. Hildreth's Request for a Typewriter

Hildreth used a typewriter instead of handwriting documents because his Parkinson's symptoms rendered them illegible. But the prison, a maximum-security facility, banned the typewriter from his cell as contraband. Hildreth also claimed the prison discriminated against him based on his Parkinson's disease by failing to reasonably accommodate him for his inability to write legibly.

To accommodate Hildreth's request to draft documents, he was placed on the automatic call line to the law library when he was 90 days away from a court deadline. A counselor was available to help him draft documents, and he could contact an officer for emergencies. Hildreth also could use a typewriter whenever he had access to the law library. Kim Butler, the former assistant warden and ADA coordinator, granted Hildreth access to the law library three days per week from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. to use the typewriter.

In the summer of 2012, Hildreth filed a grievance requesting a permit allowing him to possess the typewriter in his cell. Over two years later, on October 30, 2014, Hildreth filed a grievance stating he needed staff assistance to file grievances. Defendant Lori Oakley, a grievance officer, reviewed the complaint and found it moot because Butler had provided Hildreth with increased law library access and assistance to draft grievances. Hildreth's extra library access was later rescinded after he was provided an ADA attendant to help write grievances and pleadings. According to Hildreth, the ADA attendant did not have a high school degree, could not spell, and had sloppy handwriting. Hildreth concluded it was "not even worth it" to use the attendant. The current ADA coordinator, Angela Crain, noted if Hildreth did not want the attendant, "he can simply request extra library time again in lieu of the attendant and the ADA attendant will then be assigned to another inmate."

Hildreth has not missed any court deadlines due to the prison's actions. Still, he testified he can do only a portion of what he used to, which was to spend at least six hours a day working on court filings with a typewriter in his cell. While other inmates can draft handwritten court filings at any time in their cells, Hildreth is limited to his time with the typewriter in the library.

C. District Court Proceedings

Hildreth sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Wexford violated his Eighth Amendment right by intentionally not refilling his Parkinson's medication on time, and under the ADA that defendants Butler and Oakley discriminated against him by denying him access to a typewriter in his cell. Hildreth sought damages for past harm as well as prospective injunctive relief. While Hildreth initially sued pro se, the district court appointed counsel for him. Through that counsel Hildreth filed an amended complaint and engaged in discovery, including deposing Wexford's Rule 30(b)(6) designee.¹

Wexford moved for summary judgment on Hildreth's § 1983 claim. According to Wexford, Hildreth's medication was late only three times over a period of nineteen months, too infrequent from which to infer a widespread practice or custom of deliberate indifference. The district court agreed and found only three documented instances when Hildreth experienced medication delays over a period of nineteen months:

• On April 8, 2014, Hildreth submitted a grievance noting he was out of medication. The Warden determined this was an emergency. A doctor saw Hildreth the next day and renewed his medication for one year, but Hildreth did not receive his medication until a later date. The record does not indicate when he received this prescription.

• On October 25, 2014, Hildreth submitted another grievance stating he was about to run out of his prescription and had a couple days' worth left. The warden expedited this as an emergency. The grievance officer then contacted the healthcare unit, which stated Hildreth received the medication on October 30, 2014.

• On November 16, 2015, Hildreth submitted a grievance stating he had been out of his medication since November 13. The Warden expedited this grievance. The healthcare unit administrator advised the grievance officer that Hildreth's prescription had expired and the request to continue using Mirapex was sent to the pharmacy. The grievance officer responded on November 23, 2015, finding this grievance moot. The record does not indicate when he received this prescription.

Hildreth did not present evidence that any other inmates experienced medication delays.² The district court found that three delays over the period of a year and a half involving only Hildreth did not support an inference of a widespread practice or custom, so summary judgment was granted to Wexford.

Defendants Butler and Oakley also moved for summary judgment on Hildreth's ADA claim, arguing they reasonably accommodated his disability. The district court considered whether Hildreth, given his disability, was able to participate in the activities in question with or without reasonable accommodations. The district court found he was able to use the law library and access a typewriter three times per week for six hours a day from August 2013 to July 2015. He also could contact an officer in emergency situations, and a counselor was available to assist. The increased library access was rescinded only after Hildreth was assigned a personal ADA attendant. Nevertheless, Hildreth could have requested extra library time in lieu of using the attendant. Although Hildreth complained the attendant was inadequate, Hildreth did not miss any court deadlines.

Considering the prison's security concerns and the fact that Hildreth was able to successfully draft documents, the district court found the prison's accommodations reasonable as a matter of law and granted summary judgment to Butler and Oakley on this claim. Hildreth appealed.

II. Discussion

Summary judgment is proper when the admissible evidence shows no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56 ; Barnes v. City of Centralia , 943 F.3d 826, 830 (7th Cir. 2019). We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment and construe all facts and reasonable inferences in Hildreth's favor. See Barnes , 943 F.3d at 828.

A. Section 1983 Claim

We...