Holloway v. Del. Cnty. Sheriff, 12–2592.

Decision Date20 November 2012
Docket NumberNo. 12–2592.,12–2592.
Citation700 F.3d 1063
PartiesShane A. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DELAWARE COUNTY SHERIFF, in his official capacity; Leanna R. St. Myer; Terri Hamilton; and Dr. Nadir H. Al–Shami, in their individual capacities, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Christopher C. Myers (argued), Attorney, Christopher C. Myers & Associates, Fort Wayne, IN, for PlaintiffAppellant.

Ian L. Stewart (argued), Attorney, Stephenson Morow & Semler, Carol A. Dillon (argued), Attorney, Bleeke Dillon Crandall, PC, Indianapolis, IN, for DefendantsAppellees.

Before FLAUM and SYKES, Circuit Judges, and RANDA, District Judge. *

FLAUM, Circuit Judge.

On September 29, 2009, Shane Holloway was arrested without a warrant and detained in the Delaware County Jail. Although Holloway had a probable cause determination the day after his arrest and an initial appearance in front of a judicial officer within three days of his arrest, he was detained for nine days without having any charges filed against him. During the time he spent in the Delaware County Jail, Holloway received care from the jail's medical staff. Before his detention, Holloway had been taking prescribed Oxycontin and other medications to treat chronic pain caused by his Klippel–Trenaunay Syndrome. The jail physician did not believe that Oxycontin was necessary to treat Holloway's chronic pain and he instead prescribed non-narcotic pain medications and other medications to prevent narcotic withdrawal symptoms. After the prosecutor did not file charges against Holloway within the time allowed by the court, Holloway was released from the jail and was admitted to a hospital, during which time he resumed his regimen of Oxycontin. In August 2010, Holloway filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the Delaware County Sheriff (“the Sheriff”) violated his rights by detaining him without charges for nine days and that the jail physician and two of his attending nurses violated his constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference as to his serious medical condition. The district court granted summary judgment in defendants' favor. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I. Background

On Tuesday, September 29, 2009, Holloway left his home to drive to Anderson, Indiana with a friend. Police stopped Holloway on his way to Anderson and took him to the Delaware County Sheriff's office for questioning. Holloway arrived at the Sheriff's office at around 5:00 PM, and officers questioned him from about 5:30 PM to 5:45 PM. Shortly thereafter, Holloway was placed in a holding cell, fingerprinted, and processed. Guards locked him in a jail cell at the Delaware County Jail by 7:40 PM.

On the next day, September 30, Delaware County Master Commissioner Darrell Peckinpaugh made a probable cause determination that Holloway had been dealing in a controlled substance, a class B felony, and had been maintaining a common nuisance, a class D felony. At around 11:00 AM on October 2, the third day after his arrest, Holloway appeared in front of Delaware County Master Commissioner Joseph Speece via video conference for an initial hearing. At that time, the court informed Holloway of the probable cause determination, informed him of his rights, appointed an attorney, and ordered that he be held without bond. Pursuant to an Indiana rule of criminal procedure, the court then continued the initial hearing to allow the prosecutor more time to evaluate the case and to determine whether to file formal charges against Holloway. The court ordered that Holloway be released if the prosecutor did not file formal charges against him by 9:00 AM on October 7.

During the course of his detention at the Delaware County Jail, Holloway was under the care of the facility's medical staff. Holloway suffers from Klippel–Trenaunay Syndrome, a blood clotting disorder that causes portwine stains on the body and chronic pain. At about 7:00 PM on September 29, the day Holloway arrived at the jail, Nurse Leanna St. Myer examined Holloway and recorded information about his medications. Nurse St. Myer noted that police detectives had confiscated all of his medication as evidence at the time of his arrest. She also noted that Holloway had a port-wine stain over seventy-five percent of his body. Holloway reported that he took blood pressure medication, Elavil, Coumadin, and Oxycontin to treat his medical conditions. Nurse St. Myer advised Holloway that he would unlikely be permitted to take Oxycontin in the jail because the jail physician, Dr. Nadir Al–Shami, rarely prescribes narcotics to treat chronic pain. After taking Holloway's vital signs, Nurse St. Myer called Dr. Al–Shami and reported to him the list of medications Holloway took and for what conditions, including Oxycontin for pain. Instead of prescribing Oxycontin, Dr. Al–Shami prescribed Ibuprofen and Extra Strength Tylenol to manage Holloway's pain and ordered Vistaril, Clonidine, and Donnatal to prevent and treat narcotic withdrawal. Dr. Al–Shami also prescribed the other medications Holloway had been taking prior to his arrest, including Metoprolol, Coumadin, and Nexium. On October 1, Dr. Al–Shami authorized a prescription of Elavil and ordered an increase in the doses of Vistaril, Extra Strength Tylenol, and Ibuprofen.

During the nine days Holloway remained in the jail, on-duty nurses administered Holloway's medication pursuant to Dr. Al–Shami's orders and monitored his condition. Nurse Terri Hamilton gave Holloway his morning medication from September 30 to October 3 and from October 5 to October 7. Nurse St. Myer gave Holloway his afternoon and evening medication from September 30 to October 2 and also gave him his afternoon and evening doses on October 6. When Nurse Hamilton and Nurse St. Myer were not on duty, other nurses gave Holloway his morning, afternoon, and evening doses of medication. On two occasions, Holloway refused his morning dose of Extra Strength Tylenol and Ibuprofen.

On October 6, Dr. Al–Shami visited Holloway in the jail. Although his vital signs were normal, Holloway complained of pain in his left leg. In response to this complaint, Dr. Al–Shami ordered tests to check Holloway's blood clotting. Aside from this one complaint, the attending nurses reported that Holloway did not express any concerns of pain and he did not exhibit any signs or symptoms that he needed additional medical treatment. Holloway asserts, however, that he experienced intense pain from September 30 to October 7 because he was not taking Oxycontin and that he was doubled over on the ground in his cell. Nevertheless, he testified during his deposition that he stayed quiet and did not file complaints against the nurses or the doctor for not prescribing Oxycontin.

When the prosecutor did not file formal charges against Holloway by 9:00 AM on October 7, the guards released him from jail. After his release, Holloway was admitted to Goshen General Hospital for four to five days, during which time he resumed his regimen of Oxycontin.

In August 2010, Holloway filed suit against the Sheriff, Dr. Al–Shami, Nurse St. Myer, and Nurse Hamilton under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his second amended complaint, Holloway claimed “a loss of liberty, physical pain, mental suffering, emotionaldistress, [and] loss of freedom and liberty,” as a result of defendants' actions. Holloway sued the Sheriff in his official capacity, alleging that he violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when he held Holloway in jail for nine days without informing him of the charges against him. As to Dr. Al–Shami, Nurse St. Myer, and Nurse Hamilton, Holloway claimed that they violated the Eighth Amendment in their individual capacities because they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

The Sheriff filed a motion for summary judgment in December 2011 and Dr. Al–Shami, Nurse St. Myer, and Nurse Hamilton filed a motion for summary judgment in January 2012. The district court concluded, with regard to the Sheriff, that Holloway did not show that an unconstitutional policy or custom resulted in a constitutional deprivation. The court also concluded that Holloway did not produce sufficient evidence to support an inference that either the doctor or the nurses were deliberately indifferent to Holloway's serious medical needs.

II. Discussion

On appeal, Holloway challenges the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants. He contends that there is a genuine dispute of material fact that both the Sheriff and the medical defendants violated his constitutional rights when he was held in the jail for nine days. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, construing all facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Lane v. Williams, 689 F.3d 879, 881 (7th Cir.2012). The district court must “grant summary judgment if the movant shows that 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).

A. Claims Against the Sheriff

Holloway argues that the Sheriff is liable in his official capacity for allowing Holloway to be held for nine days in jail without being charged with a crime. He contends that the Sheriff lacked a policy to track detainees who were being held without pending charges and that the nine-day detention resulting from the lack of a policy violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that Holloway did not suffer a constitutional deprivation because he had a probable cause determination within twenty-four hours of his arrest, he had an initial hearing via video conference within three days of his arrest, and the Sheriff released him within seventy-two hours of his initial hearing, excluding weekends, when the prosecutor did not file formal charges against him. The court also held that even if...

To continue reading

Request your trial
518 cases
  • Williams v. Cnty. of Cook
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • August 28, 2013
    ...seeks to bring against Rohan in his official capacity as the Probation Department's Chief Executive Officer. Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063, 1071 (7th Cir.2012) (“Holloway sued the Sheriff in his official capacity, which is effectively the same as having brought suit aga......
  • Sistrunk v. Khan, 11 C 3974.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • January 24, 2013
    ...right to the treatment of his choice. Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir.2008); see also Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063, 1073 (7th Cir.2012) (prison physician entitled to summary judgment when he decided to treat the plaintiff's chronic pain with non-narcotic ......
  • Holmes v. Godinez, 11 C 2961
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 8, 2015
    ...resulted in deliberate indifference to objectively serious medical conditions. Perez, 792 F.3d at 776; Holloway v. Delaware Cty. Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063, 1072 (7th Cir. 2012); see Thomas v. Sheahan, 499 F. Supp. 2d 1062, 1095 (N.D. Ill. 2007). Mere negligence or gross negligence is not suffi......
  • Hahn v. Walsh
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of Illinois
    • March 14, 2013
    ...Amendment, to impose a duty on states ‘to provide adequate medical care to incarcerated individuals.’ ” Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063, 1072 (7th Cir.2012), quoting Boyce v. Moore, 314 F.3d 884, 888–89 (7th Cir.2002) ( citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Part two: case summaries by major topic.
    • United States
    • Detention and Corrections Caselaw Quarterly No. 60, June 2014
    • June 1, 2014
    ...prior to filing. (Louisiana Department of Corrections) U.S. Appeals Court DUE PROCESS SPEEDY TRIAL Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, 700 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2012). An arrestee brought a [section] 1983 action, alleging that a sheriff, who was sued in his official capacity, violated his ri......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT