United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
MICHAEL J. REAGAN Chief Judge
March 11, 2015, Plaintiff Calvin Hempstead, a former inmate
with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), filed
this civil rights lawsuit asserting that his Eighth Amendment
rights were violated while he was at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center (“Pinckneyville”). In
February 2014, prison officials transferred Hempstead from
Vienna Correctional Center (“Vienna”) to
Pinckneyville. Upon arriving at Pinckneyville, Hempstead
states that he was placed in an unsanitary cell in the
prison's disciplinary segregation unit and that he
developed a rash on his scalp. Hempstead alleges that various
employees of the Pinckneyville Health Care Unit failed to
provide adequate medical treatment for the condition.
7, 2015, Hempstead filed an amended complaint (Doc. 33). In
Count I of the amended complaint, he asserts an Eighth
Amendment conditions of confinement claim against IDOC
employees Jeff Miller and Jeff Roelandt for knowingly placing
him in the filthy cell in the prison's segregation unit.
In Count II, Hempstead asserts an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs claim against Sarah
Farris, Marcia Hill, Ladonna Long, Angel Rector and Vipin
Shah for failing to provide adequate medical treatment for
his scalp condition. Farris, Hill, Long, Rector and Shah work
in the Pinckneyville Health Care Unit and are employed by
Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”), a
corporation that provides healthcare services to IDOC
now seek summary judgment. (Docs. 87 and 93). Hempstead did
not respond to the motions for summary judgment, though he
was notified of the potential consequences of failing to do
so. See Doc. 89; Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d
281, 285 (7th Cir. 1992) (pro se litigants “entitled to
notice of the consequences of failing to respond to a summary
judgment motion”). Hempstead was also notified that
pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the failure to file a response
to a motion “may, in the Court's discretion, be
considered an admission of the merits of the motion.”
For the following reasons, Defendants' motions for
summary judgment are granted.
Calvin Hempstead was an inmate with IDOC from August 27,
2013, through September 4, 2015. (Affidavit of Chalene Hale,
Doc. 88-1, p. 1). On February 6, 2014, Hempstead was
transferred from Vienna to Pinckneyville for disciplinary
reasons after he assaulted an IDOC staff member at Vienna.
Id. Upon arriving at Pinckneyville, prison officials
placed Hempstead in cell B-74 in the facility's
segregation unit. Id. at p. 2. Hempstead resided in
cell B-74 until February 23, 2014, when he was transferred to
segregation cell A-69. Id. at p. 2. Hempstead
remained in cell A-69 until he was transferred out of
segregation on May 13, 2014. Id. at p. 2. After a
few more stays in the Pinckneyville segregation unit in late
2014 and early 2015, Hempstead was released from IDOC custody
in September 2015. Id. at p. 2.
arriving at Pinckneyville, Hempstead was examined in the
facility's Health Care Unit at 10:00 a.m. on February 6,
2014. (Doc. 94-2, p. 19). Hempstead's medical records
state that he was wearing a brace on his right hand because
he had suffered a fracture in the fourth metacarpal bone (the
bone in the hand connected to the ring finger). Id.
at pp. 19-20. After a few examinations for the hand issue in
February and March 2014, Hempstead was examined for a scalp
condition for the first time on May 30, 2014. (Doc. 94-3, p.
6). Defendant Sarah Farris, L.P.N., examined Hempstead on
that date and observed a rash on Hempstead's scalp.
Id. Hempstead told Nurse Farris that the rash
developed approximately three weeks prior and that it was the
first time he had experienced such a rash. Id. Nurse
Farris diagnosed Hempstead as having either dermatitis or
tinea. Id. After consulting with Defendant Dr. Vipin
Shah, Nurse Farris prescribed Hempstead hydrocortisone cream
and selsun lotion. Id. After the May 30, 2014,
examination, Nurse Farris did not provide any additional
treatment for Hempstead's scalp condition. (Farris
Affidavit, Doc. 94-8, p. 2).
medical records indicate that he was next examined in the
Health Care Unit on July 21, 2014. (Doc. 94-3, p. 7).
Defendant Ladonna Long, L.P.N., examined Hempstead for
complaints of knee and hand pain. There is no mention in the
record of the visit that the two discussed Hempstead's
scalp condition. Id. Hempstead's next medical
appointment was scheduled for July 30, 2014. Id. at
p. 8. However, the notes of Defendant Marcia Hill from that
date state that Hempstead “became very angry”
when he was informed that he would be required to provide a
co-pay and that he refused treatment. Id. at p. 8.
returned to the Health Care Unit on August 8, 2014, for
complaints of knee pain. (Doc. 94-3, p. 9). The examining
nurse referred Hempstead for a follow up appointment, and on
August 12, 2014, Defendant Angel Rector, P.A., examined
Hempstead. Id. at p. 10. Rector and Hempstead
discussed his knee and hand issues, but there is no
indication that they discussed the rash. Id. at p.
10. On August 14, 2014, Nurse Long examined Hempstead for the
rash issue. (Doc. 94-3, p. 11). Hempstead told Nurse Long
that he had an itchy rash all over the top of his head, and
he suspected that the rash was caused by his unsanitary cell.
Id. Hempstead was also upset that he was being seen
by a nurse and not a doctor. Id. Long referred
Hempstead for a follow-up examination, and on August 18,
2014, Defendant Rector again examined Hempstead. Id.
at p. 12. P.A. Rector noted that Hempstead's scalp
condition was stable but there were a few dark patches near
the rash. Id. at p. 12. At the conclusion of the
examination, P.A. Rector referred Hempstead to be seen by Dr.
Shah. Id. at p. 12.
Shah examined Hempstead on August 22, 2014. Id. at
p. 13. Dr. Shaw diagnosed Hempstead as having “tinea
versicolor” and prescribed a selenium sulfate shampoo.
Id. at p. 13. According to Dr. Shah's
declaration attached to his motion for summary judgment,
tinea versicolor “is a fungal infection of the skin and
is caused by a type of yeast that naturally lives on human
skin.” (Doc. 94-9, p. 2). The condition is not
contagious, but “acidic bleach from the growing yeast
causes areas of skin to be a different color than the
surrounding skin[.]” Id. Dr. Shah also states
in his declaration that “[t]here was no epidemic of
ring worm at Pinckneyville Correctional Center in
2014.” Id. at p. 3. After the August 22, 2014,
examination, there is no record of Hempstead making any
further complaints about his scalp condition.
addition to the healthcare Defendants, Hempstead asserts
claims against IDOC correctional officers Jeff Miller and
Jeff Roelandt. Attached to the IDOC Defendants' Motion
for Summary Judgment are affidavits from Miller and Roelandt.
Miller states in his affidavit that he has been a
Correctional Officer at Pinckneyville since 1996. From
February through May 2014, he was assigned to work in
Pinckneyville's segregation unit. (Doc 88-3, p. 1). On
February 6, 2014, Miller received notice from the
Pinckneyville placement officer that Hempstead was to be
assigned to a cell in the segregation unit. Id. at
p. 2. Miller states that he did not observe Hempstead's
cell to be contaminated, nor did he knowingly provide
Hempstead with contaminated bedding. Id. at p. 2.
Inmate workers clean the cells prior to having a new inmate
assigned. Id. at p. 2. Furthermore, Hempstead never
notified Miller that the cell was contaminated or unfit for
human habitation. Id. at pp. 2-3.
Roelandt states in his affidavit that he has been a
Correctional Officer at Pinckneyville since 2013. (Doc. 88-4,
p. 1). Roelandt was also assigned to work in the
Pinckneyville segregation unit from February through May
2014. Id. Roelandt has never been the placement
officer at Pinckneyville, and he did not personally assign
Hempstead to the cell. Id. Inmate workers deliver
mattresses and bed linens to the inmates in the segregation
unit. Id. Roelandt states in his affidavit that he
did not knowingly provide Hempstead with contaminated
bedding, nor did he knowingly place Hempstead in a cell
contaminated with fungus or bodily fluids. Id. at p.
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, “the
court shall 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.”
When faced with a motion for summary judgment, the Court must
examine the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving
party and all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in their
favor. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir.
2003). At this point in the litigation “[t]he court has
one task and one task only: to decide, based on the evidence
of record, whether there is any material dispute of fact that
requires a trial.” Id. Summary judgment shall
be denied ...