ILNews

Man loses appeal of suit against sheriff, jail medical staff

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man who was held in Delaware County jail for nine days before he was released because no charges were filed sued the county sheriff and jail medical staff alleging indifference to his serious medical condition. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Shane Holloway, who has Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome, which causes chronic body pain, was arrested Sept. 29, 2009, on suspicion of dealing drugs. A master commissioner informed Holloway of the probable cause determination and ordered that Holloway be released by 9 a.m. Oct. 7 if the prosecutor didn’t file formal charges. During his time in jail, the medical staff did not give him Oxycontin, which he took to manage pain, but instead prescribed Tylenol and ibuprofen.

Holloway was released on Oct. 7 after charges weren’t filed. He filed his lawsuit against the county sheriff, Dr. Nadir Al-Shami and two nurses claiming they were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. While in jail, he only mentioned he was in pain once to the medical staff, although he later said he was in pain the entire time but kept quiet.

The District Court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, finding Holloway did not show that an unconstitutional policy or custom resulted in a constitutional deprivation. Also, Holloway didn’t produce evidence to support an inference that the doctor or nurses were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

In Shane A. Holloway v. Delaware County Sheriff, in his official capacity, et al., 12-2592, the 7th Circuit found the length of Holloway’s detention did not violate the 14th Amendment and agreed that the sheriff didn’t act pursuant to an unconstitutional policy or custom. With regard to the medical staff, Holloway didn’t show any evidence that Al-Shami intended to cause Holloway pain or knew that the drugs he prescribed would be insufficient to alleviate Holloway’s symptoms. The judges also pointed out that the nurses could not prescribe medication on their own and didn’t act with deliberate indifference in following the doctor’s orders.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT