Desmond Hicks v. James Borgen, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants summary judgment to the medical defendants in Desmond Hicks’s Fourteenth Amendment claims concerning post-surgical pain treatment while he was a pretrial detainee. The First Amendment retaliation claims against several security officers remain pending, and the court directs the clerk to schedule a telephonic status conference.

Holdings

1. A pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment medical-care claim is governed by an objective-unreasonableness standard, requiring proof of an objectively serious medical condition and an objectively unreasonable response.
2. Summary judgment was appropriate for Robbins and Brenner because Hicks offered only vague allegations and no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that either nurse treated his postsurgical pain with objective unreasonableness.
3. Summary judgment was appropriate for Dr. Horton because no reasonable factfinder could conclude that her treatment of Hicks’s postsurgical pain was objectively unreasonable.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the medical defendants violated a pretrial detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by treating his postsurgical pain in an objectively unreasonable manner.
2. Whether summary judgment was warranted against Robbins and Brenner because Hicks failed to present specific evidence showing that either nurse treated his pain objectively unreasonably.
3. Whether summary judgment was warranted for Dr. Horton where she initially declined to prescribe codeine but provided other pain treatments, later prescribed codeine and gabapentin, and arranged additional medical care.

Disposition

other