Hibbard v. Reitz

Citation: 33 F. App'x 820Docket: No. 01-4223

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 19, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Wisconsin inmate Jeffrey Hibbard filed a lawsuit against prison staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, claiming deliberate indifference to his medical needs and due process violations. The district court dismissed his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failing to state a claim, a decision Hibbard appealed. His complaint centered on nurse Charlene Reitz’s treatment of a respiratory issue that escalated to pneumonia and an E. Coli infection. Hibbard alleged that Reitz ignored his history of pneumonia and his request for antibiotics, opting instead for cough syrup and Advil. Subsequently, Hibbard experienced severe breathing difficulties, leading to hospitalization where he received antibiotics and was placed under an oxygen tent for eleven days, resulting in permanent emphysema.

Upon returning to prison, Hibbard filed a complaint against Reitz, which was dismissed by Inmate Complaint Examiner Linda Olson-O’Donovan without interviews, based mainly on Hibbard's medical chart. Hibbard claimed this dismissal was part of a conspiracy to protect Reitz, violating his due process rights by preventing a thorough investigation. He asserted that subsequent reviews by prison officials similarly failed to investigate adequately.

The district court acknowledged Hibbard's lung damage as a serious medical need but ruled that he did not demonstrate Reitz’s deliberate indifference, interpreting his claims as mere dissatisfaction with treatment. The court also dismissed his due process claim, stating that the inmate review system did not create a constitutionally protected interest. Hibbard's conspiracy allegations were also found to lack sufficient basis.

On appeal, Hibbard argued that his due process rights were violated when the court dismissed his case after he partially paid the filing fee. The appellate court disagreed, affirming that the district court was required to dismiss claims that failed to state a claim or were deemed frivolous, regardless of the fee status. Hibbard's claims were dismissed because he indicated that Reitz believed her treatment was appropriate, which does not constitute the deliberate disregard necessary for an Eighth Amendment violation.

Reitz is not found to have deliberately disregarded Hibbard’s medical symptoms; instead, Hibbard alleges that Reitz did not take these symptoms seriously and refused his requested treatment. Claims of negligence alone do not establish a deliberate indifference claim, as established in case law. Disagreement with a treatment decision does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. A failure to thoroughly review a patient's medical history and prescribe the correct antibiotics may indicate malpractice but not deliberate indifference, especially when some treatment was provided. Hibbard's claims focus solely on Reitz’s actions during one visit, lacking allegations of systemic neglect or repeated refusals for help from the prison health staff. Consequently, Hibbard's unsuccessful Eighth Amendment claim affects his conspiracy allegations against O’Donovan and Dittman, as there can be no conspiracy to cover up actions that do not violate the Constitution. Additionally, the failure of the Eighth Amendment claim undermines both his substantive and procedural due process claims, as there was no alleged unconstitutional deprivation necessitating due process protections. Injuries resulting from lack of due care do not meet the deprivation standards under the Fourteenth Amendment, and prisoners do not possess a constitutionally protected interest in state-created grievance procedures. The ruling is AFFIRMED.