# Plummer v. Thompson

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · September 26, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156832

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** September 26, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156832

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

CONTRELL PLUMMER,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:20-CV-961-NJR

ALBERTO BUTALID and
LADONNA LONG,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:
Contrell Plummer, an inmate in the Illinois Department of Corrections, filed this
lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging he received constitutionally deficient medical care for
a spider bite and lower abdominal and back pain while imprisoned at Pinckneyville
Correctional Center. (Doc. 1). Defendants Dr. Alberto Butalid and LaDonna Long1 have
moved for summary judgment (Doc. 58), and Plummer has responded (Doc. 65). For the
following reasons, Defendants’ motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2018, Plummer had a skin irritation on his right hip. (Doc. 59-3 at pp. 10-
11). Plummer scratched a bump, causing it to burst open and blood and fluid to come out.
(Id. at p. 11). A few days later, a lump appeared in his groin, which caused him pain and
made it difficult to walk. (Id.). Plummer put in for sick call and was seen by Defendant Long,
a licensed practical nurse, on July 16, 2018. (Id.). Plummer described the pain to Long as

1 Defendant Long has since married and changed her legal name to LaDonna Estes. For the sake of
consistency, the Court refers to Ms. Estes in this Order as Defendant Long.
stabbing, intermittent, and being at a level of 5 to 6 out of 10. (Doc. 59-1 at p. 1). Long noted
two small nodules, one on Plummer’s hip and one in his pelvic area. (Doc. 59-2 at p. 4). Long
gave Plummer acetaminophen 325 mg, 1 to 2 tablets three times a day for three days, and

advised him to return if his symptoms worsened. (Doc. 59-1 at p. 2). Long also put Plummer
in to see a doctor. (Doc. 59-3 at p. 13; Doc. 65 at p. 92).
Three days later, Dr. Butalid examined Plummer and noted in his chart that Plummer
was negative for fever or chills and negative for an insect bite. (Doc. 59-2 at p. 5; Doc. 59-4 at
p. 1). Although the medical record from that appointment indicates Plummer did not have
an insect bite, Plummer testified that Dr. Butalid said “oh, that’s a spider bite” upon physical
examination. (Doc. 59-3 at p. 14). Dr. Butalid observed a 1.5 cm lump or knot in Plummer’s

right hip area with an open area that was moderately tender and an underlying mass that
was 5 x 5 cm, sore, and warm. (Doc. 59-2 at p. 5; Doc. 59-4 at p. 2). Plummer also had a 2 x 2
cm mass in his right groin that was sore with lymph node enlargement that was tender. (Id.).
Plummer testified that Dr. Butalid told him his gland was swollen due to the effects of the
spider bite. (Doc. 59-3 at p. 14). Dr. Butalid assessed Plummer as having cellulitis of the right
hip with possible abscess. (Doc. 59-2 at p. 5; Doc. 59-4 at p. 2). He ordered Bactrim DS, an
antibiotic, and dressing changes for two weeks. (Id.). He also ordered Plummer to follow up

on July 23, 2018. (Id.).
During his appointment with Dr. Butalid, Plummer also complained of pain in his
lower abdomen and back, which he had experienced for over 10 years. (Doc. 59-3 at p. 20;
Doc. 59-4 at p. 2). Plummer indicated he had irregular bowel movements but had no nausea
or vomiting and was negative for melena (dark, tarry feces) and hematochezia (the passage
of fresh blood through the anus usually in or with stools). (Doc. 59-4 at p. 2). Dr. Butalid
examined Plummer’s stomach and noted it was flat and soft with positive bowel sounds. (Id.).
Dr. Butalid further noted there was no guarding (tensing) of the abdominal muscles or
rebound pain after he pressed on the abdomen. (Id.). Plummer did have mild tenderness of

the left lower area but no tenderness of the right lower back. (Id.). Dr. Butalid suspected
irritable bowel syndrome (“IBS”) and prescribed Nortriptyline and Fiberlax. (Id.). He also
recommended that Plummer increase his fluids and eat a high fiber diet. (Id.).
This was not the first time Dr. Butalid saw Plummer for abdominal and lower back
pain. In March 2018, Plummer complained of abdominal pain that radiated to his back. (Id.
at p. 3). Dr. Butalid assessed Plummer as having vague abdominal pain and decided to rule
out IBS. (Id.). He ordered abdominal x-rays and increased Plummer’s prescription for Pepcid

to 20 mg twice a day for six months. (Id.). About a month later, Plummer returned to
Dr. Butalid for his asthma and COPD. (Id.). At that appointment, Plummer complained that
Pepcid and Levsin, another medication used to treat abdominal issues, were not working.
(Id.). Dr. Butalid noted that Plummer had not been compliant with taking the prescribed
medications, and Dr. Butalid discontinued them. (Id.). When Plummer again complained of
stomach pain on July 8, 2018, Dr. Butalid restarted Plummer’s prescription for Pepcid, 20 mg
twice a day.

Plummer filed this lawsuit in September 2020 alleging Dr. Butalid and Long were
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Doc. 1). Specifically, Plummer alleges that Dr. Butalid
and Long were deliberately indifferent to his spider bite, which he claims was from a brown
recluse, and that Dr. Butalid was deliberately indifferent to his back and abdominal pain.
(Id.).
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that no material facts are in
genuine dispute and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Machicote v.

Roethlisberger, 969 F.3d 822, 827 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a)). “A genuine dispute
over a material fact exists if ‘the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict’
for the nonmovant.” Id. (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Once the moving party sets forth the basis for summary judgment, the burden then
shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond mere allegations and offer specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 232-24 (1986). A moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

where the non-moving party “has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element
of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. The
party opposing summary judgment must offer admissible evidence in support of his version
of events; hearsay evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact. Durling v. Menard,
Inc., No. 18 C 4052, 2020 WL 996520, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2020) (citing McKenzie v. Ill. Dep’t
of Transp., 92 F.3d 473, 484 (7th Cir. 1996)).
In determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must view the

evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant. Bennington v.
Caterpillar Inc., 275 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986). However, “[i]nferences that rely upon speculation or conjecture are
insufficient.” Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713, 719 (7th Cir. 2014). “Where the record taken as
a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no
‘genuine issue for trial.’” Id. (citation omitted).
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court has recognized that “deliberate indifference to serious medical
needs of prisoners” may constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth

Amendment. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To succeed on a claim of deliberate
indifference, a plaintiff must show he suffered from an objectively serious medical condition
and that the individual defendant was deliberately indifferent to that condition. Berry v.
Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010); Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 750 (7th Cir. 2011)
(citing Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579, 584 (7th Cir. 2006)).
A medical condition is objectively serious if “a physician has diagnosed it as requiring
treatment, or the need for treatment would be obvious to a layperson.” Lockett v. Bonson, 937

F.3d 1016, 1023 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014))
(internal quotation marks omitted). It is not necessary for a medical condition to “be life-
threatening to be serious; rather, it could be a condition that would result in further
significant injury or unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain if not treated.” Gayton v.
McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); accord Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828 (1994)
(violating the Eighth Amendment requires “deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of
serious harm”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

Prevailing on the second prong requires a prisoner to show that a prison official had
subjective knowledge of—and then disregarded—an excessive risk to the inmate’s health. Id.
at 653. The plaintiff need not show the individual “literally ignored” his complaint, but that
the individual was aware of the condition and either knowingly or recklessly disregarded it.
Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 524 (7th Cir. 2008). Deliberate indifference involves intentional
or reckless conduct, not mere medical negligence or malpractice. Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403,
409 (7th Cir. 2014); Berry v. Peterman, 604 F.3d 435, 440 (7th Cir. 2010).
I. Deliberate Indifference to Spider Bite
In his complaint, Plummer alleges that Long and Dr. Butalid were deliberately

indifferent when they failed to treat his spider bite as an emergency and did not give him
first aid. (Doc. 1).
A. Objectively Serious Medical Condition
As an initial matter, neither party discusses whether the spider bite was an objectively
serious medical condition sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the deliberate indifference
analysis. In some situations, an infected skin wound can rise to the level of an objectively
serious medical condition. See Fryer v. Ledvora, No. 14 C 9199, 2017 WL 36445, at *5 (N.D. Ill.

Jan. 4, 2017) (citing Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1373 (7th Cir. 1997) (a layperson would
recognize that a “purulent draining infection” caused by an infected cyst that was
accompanied by extreme pain and high fevers is a sufficiently serious medical condition)).
On the other hand, an “uncomfortable skin issue” is not objectively serious if it responds to
treatment. Id. (citing Roberts v. Bailey, No. 13 C 5245, 2015 WL 5332237, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Sept.
14, 2015) (an infected spider bite “similar in appearance to a pimple . . . is not, in and of itself,
an objectively serious medical condition,” if the plaintiff fails to identify evidence indicating

that the infection poses a significant health risk)).
Here, Dr. Butalid noted that Plummer had a 1.5 cm lump with an open area that was
moderately tender and an underlying mass that was 5 x 5 cm, sore, and warm. (Doc. 59-2 at
p. 5; Doc. 59-4 at p. 2). He also had a 2 x 2 cm mass in his right groin. Plummer testified that
when the lump initially burst, it drained blood and pus. There is no evidence, however, that
the lump continued to weep or bleed profusely when he saw Long or Dr. Butalid, and
Plummer told Long his pain was a 5 or 6 on a scale of 0 to 10—far less than the “excruciating
pain” courts have required to determine a skin infection is a serious medical condition. See
Myrick v. Anglin, 496 F. App’x 670, 674 (7th Cir. 2012). Thus, the Court doubts whether

Plummer’s spider bite and accompanying swollen gland rises to the level of a serious medical
condition. Nevertheless, because Defendants do not make this argument, the Court presumes
for purposes of summary judgment that Plummer meets the first prong of the deliberate
indifference analysis.
B. Knowing or Reckless Disregard to an Excessive Risk to Plummer’s Health
At his deposition, Plummer testified that he thought Long was deliberately indifferent
to his spider bite because she did not examine it and did not treat it as an emergency even

though it was bleeding, he was in pain, and he couldn’t walk properly. (Doc. 59-3 at p. 12).
Plummer testified that he did not have full range of motion in his hip due to the spider
venom, so he had to walk slightly bent over. (Id.). Plummer further testified that he thought
Dr. Butalid was deliberately indifferent because he did not administer anti-venom for the
brown recluse bite, did not deem it an emergency, and did not administer first aid. (Doc. 59-
3 at pp. 18-19). Plummer then had to wait several days to receive the antibiotics and wound
dressings that Dr. Butalid ordered. (Id. at p. 19).

First, while Plummer disputes on summary judgment that Long physically examined
him, his dispute is not genuine. Not only has Plummer failed to support his disputed fact
with any citation to the record, see FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c), but the medical records, Plummer’s
own complaint, and his grievance from September 1, 2018, belie his assertion. Long noted in
Plummer’s file that she observed two nodules on his right side. In his complaint, Plummer
states that Long “was shown two (2) lumps.” (Doc. 1 at p. 12). And in his grievance,
completed about a month and a half after he saw Long, Plummer stated that he “showed
Nurse L. Long two lumps. One on the side of his right hip on the right side. One lump in the
crease of his leg (right side). Nurse Long put grievant in for the doctor.” Thus, the Court finds

it undisputed that Long examined Plummer’s spider bite. See Marvin v. Holcomb, 72 F.4th 828,
833 (7th Cir. 2023) (“[Plaintiff] cannot create a genuine dispute of material fact by relying on
allegations; he must point to admissible evidence in the record.”).
Second, there is no evidence that the treatment Dr. Butalid or Long rendered was
constitutionally deficient. Long observed Plummer’s wound, prescribed him a pain reliever,
put him in to see the doctor, and advised him to return if his symptoms worsened. Nothing
about Plummer’s spider bite warranted Long treating it as a medical emergency. Likewise,

Dr. Butalid examined Plummer, found that he was negative for fever or chills, and diagnosed
him with cellulitis of the right hip with a possible abscess. Dr. Butalid ordered an antibiotic
to address the infection and dressing changes for the open wound. Again, nothing about this
treatment demonstrates a disregard to a serious risk to Plummer’s health.
Plummer argues that Dr. Butalid should have administered anti-venom for his brown
recluse bite. An anti-venom for brown recluse bites simply does not exist.2 Plummer also
complains that he did not see Long or Dr. Butalid in the timeframe required by the IDOC.

But “the failure of officials to comply with departmental regulations or even state law does
not necessarily violate the Constitution.” Courtney v. Butler, 66 F.4th 1043, 1052 (7th Cir. 2023)
(citing Thompson v. City of Chicago, 472 F.3d 444, 454 (7th Cir. 2006)). And there is no evidence
that Long or Dr. Butalid had any involvement in scheduling Plummer’s appointments.

2 Healthline, “Brown Recluse Spider Bites: What You Should Know,” https://www.healthline.com/health/brown-
recluse-spider#prevention (“There is no recommended antivenom (medicine that counteracts the poison in the bite,
called venom) for brown recluse spiders.”) (last visited Sept. 25, 2023).
Finally, while Plummer complains that he did not receive the antibiotics and dressing
changes until July 23, 2018, four days after Dr. Butalid prescribed them, there is no evidence
that Dr. Butalid had any control over when Plummer would receive his prescriptions.

In sum, even assuming that Plummer was suffering from an objectively serious
medical condition, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Dr.
Butalid or Long were deliberately indifferent. For these reasons, they are entitled to summary
judgment on Plummer’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his spider bite.
II. Deliberate Indifference to Lower Abdominal and Back Pain
Plummer also asserts that Dr. Butalid was deliberately indifferent to his lower
abdominal and back pain when he resorted to a course of treatment that he knew to be

ineffective.
A. Objectively Serious Medical Condition
Again, neither party discusses whether Plummer’s lower abdominal and back pain
constitutes an objectively serious medical condition. Plummer claims to have experienced
this pain for more than 10 years, and chronic pain can be an objectively serious medical
condition. See Gonzalez v. Feinerman, 663 F.3d 311, 314 (7th Cir. 2011). Because Defendants do
not argue that Plummer’s pain was insufficient to constitute an objectively serious medical

condition, the Court again presumes for purposes of summary judgment that the first prong
of the deliberate indifference standard is met.
B. Knowing or Reckless Disregard to an Excessive Risk to Plummer’s Health
Plummer claims Dr. Butalid acted with deliberate indifference to his back and
stomach issues when he persisted in an ineffective course of treatment by prescribing the
same medication he had previously taken.
It is true that a doctor cannot resort to an “easier and less efficacious treatment” that
they know to be ineffective. Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 730 (7th Cir. 2016), as amended
(Aug. 25, 2016). Even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Plummer, however,

that is not what happened here.
Plummer admits that between 2015 and the present, he has been prescribed 19
different medications to try to solve his abdominal and back pain. (Doc. 65 at pp. 34-35).
Although Dr. Butalid re-prescribed Pepcid at an earlier appointment despite Plummer’s
complaints that it was not effective, Dr. Butalid had noted that Plummer had been non-
compliant in taking his medications. Thus, it was not unreasonable for Dr. Butalid to
prescribe Pepcid again. At his appointment on July 19, 2018, Dr. Butalid prescribed

Nortriptyline and Fiberlax, which he had not previously prescribed. Plummer also has had
multiple x-rays of his abdomen, at least one of which was ordered by Dr. Butalid. (Doc. 59-2
at p. 10). That x-ray showed that Plummer’s bowel gas pattern was non-obstructive. (Id.).
Finally, Plummer admits that Dr. Butalid referred him for a consultation with a
gastrointestinal specialist, but that the request was denied in collegial review by Dr. Ritz.
Thus, there is no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Dr. Butalid
persisted in an easier or ineffective course of treatment without exercising professional

judgment. Dr. Butalid physically examined Plummer, attempted to determine the source of
his pain by ordering x-rays, referred him for a consultation with a gastrointestinal specialist,
and prescribed medication that could potentially help Plummer if taken as directed. In other
words, the undisputed facts show that Dr. Butalid exercised his medical judgment in
diagnosing and treating Plummer’s condition through physical examinations, imaging,
medication, and the referral to an outside specialist. That Dr. Butalid’s request for a
consultation with a specialist was denied by another doctor on collegial review does not make
him personally liable for deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc.,
18 F.4th 214, 243 (7th Cir. 2021). Thus, the Court finds that Dr. Butalid is entitled to summary
judgment on Plummer’s claim of deliberate indifference to his lower abdominal and back
pain.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Dr. Alberto
Butalid and LaDonna Long (Doc. 58) is GRANTED. Plaintiff Contrell Plummer shall recover
nothing. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 26, 2023
Thee fMoeteg!
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 11 of 11

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10156832. Public record. Not legal advice.