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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT