The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RONNIE BEE CISLO,
Plaintiff,
v. CAUSE NO. 3:24-CV-57-HAB-SLC
RON HEEG, ERIC TCHAPTCHET,
CHERYL STRAHLE, LAPORTE
COUNTY SHERRIFF DEPT., and
QUALITY CORRECTIONAL CARE,
LLC,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Ronnie Bee Cislo, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging he is a
heroin addict who is being denied buprenorphine (Suboxone) at the LaPorte County
Jail. ECF 1. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation
marks and citations omitted). Nevertheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must
review the merits of a prisoner complaint and dismiss it if the action is frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
Cislo attempts to sue under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
by asserting his heroin addiction is a disability which is the motivation for the
defendants denying him buprenorphine. “To establish a violation of Title II of the ADA,
the plaintiff must prove that he is a qualified individual with a disability, that he was
denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise
subjected to discrimination by such an entity, and that the denial or discrimination was
by reason of his disability.” Wagoner v. Lemmon, 778 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 2015)
(quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, Cislo is not alleging the denial of a
service, program, or activity within the meaning of ADA. He is alleging only the denial
of medical treatment, but “the ADA does not create a remedy for medical malpractice.”
Brown v. Meisner, 81 F.4th 706, 709 (7th Cir. 2023) (quotation marks omitted) quoting
Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246, 249 (7th Cir. 1996). This complaint does not state a claim
under the ADA.
It appears Cislo is a pretrial detainee. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a pre-
trial detainee cannot be punished without due process of law. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S.
520 (1979). “In evaluating the constitutionality of conditions or restrictions of pretrial
detention . . . the proper inquiry is whether those conditions amount to punishment of
the detainee.” Id. at 539. This complaint does not plausibly allege that the reason Cislo is
being denied buprenorphine is to punish him. “[I]n the absence of an expressed intent
to punish, a pretrial detainee can nevertheless prevail by showing that the actions are
not ‘rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive governmental purpose’ or that the
actions ‘appear excessive in relation to that purpose.’” Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S.
389, 398 (2015) (quoting Bell). However, “it will not be enough to show negligence or
gross negligence.” Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 353 (7th Cir. 2018).
This complaint says Cislo is being denied buprenorphine, but it does not say
what treatment he is receiving. It says he is in pain, but
[w]hether and how pain associated with medical treatment should be
mitigated is for doctors to decide free from judicial interference, except in
the most extreme situations. A prisoner’s dissatisfaction with a doctor’s
prescribed course of treatment does not give rise to a constitutional claim
unless the medical treatment is so blatantly inappropriate as to evidence
intentional mistreatment likely to seriously aggravate the prisoner’s
condition.
Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586, 592 (7th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
This is why courts “defer to medical professionals’ treatment decisions unless there is
evidence that no minimally competent professional would have so responded under
those circumstances.” Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 965 (7th Cir.
2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
This complaint does not contain enough facts about Cislo’s medical condition
and treatment to state a claim. It does not provide facts explaining what role any of the
defendants have in that treatment. A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to
“state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the pleaded factual content allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,
on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in
fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks, citations and footnote omitted).
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere
possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has not shown—the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quotation marks and brackets omitted). Thus,
“a plaintiff must do better than putting a few words on paper that, in the hands of an
imaginative reader, might suggest that something has happened to her that might be
redressed by the law.” Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 403 (7th Cir. 2010)
(emphasis in original).
This complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted. If Cislo
believes he can state a claim based on (and consistent with) the events described in this
complaint, he may file an amended complaint because “[t]he usual standard in civil
cases is to allow defective pleadings to be corrected, especially in early stages, at least
where amendment would not be futile.” Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726, 738
(7th Cir. 2018).
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DIRECTS the clerk to write this cause number on a Pro Se 14 (INND Rev.
2/20) Prisoner Complaint form and send it to Ronnie Bee Cislo;
(2) GRANTS Ronnie Bee Cislo until February 27, 2024, to file an amended
complaint on that form; and
(3) CAUTIONS Ronnie Bee Cislo if he does not respond by the deadline, this case
will be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A without further notice because the current
complaint does not state a claim for which relief can be granted.
SO ORDERED on January 24, 2024.
s/Holly A. Brady
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT