Black v. Stokes

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

RODNEY BLACK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-CV-190-NJR

PERCY MYERS, ALISA DEARMOND,

and AIMEE LANG,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROSENSTENGEL, Chief Judge:

Plaintiff Rodney Black, an inmate at Menard Correctional Center (“Menard”)

within the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 alleging Defendants Dr. Percy Myers, Alisa Dearmond, and Aimee Lang were

deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. (Doc. 1). The matter is now before the Court on the Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment filed by Black (Doc. 84), as well as the Motions for Summary

Judgment filed by Defendants. (Docs. 98, 107). For the reasons set forth below, summary

judgment is granted to Defendants Dr. Myers and Dearmond, granted in part and denied

in part as to Defendant Lang, and denied as to Plaintiff Black.

BACKGROUND

The following material facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted, for the

purposes of the instant summary judgment motions.1 In 2022, Dearmond was a nurse

1 Black did not respond to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment; therefore, Defendants’ facts are

practitioner (NP) employed by Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (“Wexford”) at Menard,

Lang was a Correctional Medical Technician (CMT) employed by the IDOC at Menard,

and Dr. Myers was a physician employed by Wexford. (Docs. 99-2; 99-3; 108-1 at p. 52).

Dr. Myers served as a Traveling Medical Director and provided care to patients at

Menard when needed. (Doc. 99-3).

Black attended nurse sick call on March 18, 2022. (Docs. 99-2; 99-3; 99-4 at p. 7). He

had previously been diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), which is a non-

cancerous condition that causes the prostate gland to enlarge. (Docs. 99-2; 99-3).

Symptoms of BPH include frequency or urgency to urinate, frequent urination at night,

trouble urinating, weak urine stream, and inability to empty the bladder. (Id.). Black was

prescribed Hytrin, a medication used to improve urination in men with BPH, to help with

urinary frequency. (Docs. 99-2; 99-3; 99-4 at p. 7). During his sick call visit, Black reported

that the Hytrin was not helping him. (Doc. 99-4 at pp. 7, 187). The nurse noted elevated

prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels, which can indicate prostate cancer or a non-

cancerous prostate condition, and Black was referred to the NP line for further

examination. (Docs. 99-2 at p. 2; 99-3 at p. 2).

NP Dearmond saw Black six days later, on March 24, 2022, and called Southern

Illinois Healthcare Urology (“SIH Urology”) to schedule a cystoscopy with biopsy.

(Doc. 99-4 at p 8). NP Dearmond’s plan of care was to wait for a call back from SIH

Urology. (Id.). On March 29, 2022, NP Dearmond called SIH Urology again about

deemed admitted except where disputed by Black’s own declaration and testimony. SDIL-LR 56.1(g) (“All

material facts set forth in a Statement of Material Facts or a Statement of Additional Material Facts shall be

deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically disputed.”).

scheduling a cystoscopy with biopsy ASAP. (Id. at p. 11). The scheduler indicated they

would leave a message with the nurse and call NP Dearmond back. (Id.). Later that same

day, NP Dearmond called SIH Urology again and left a message with the surgery

scheduler. (Id. at p. 12).

The next day, March 30, 2022, NP Dearmond again called SIH Urology and spoke

to the receptionist. (Id. at p. 13). NP Dearmond was again told to wait for a call back. (Id.).

She finally received a call from SIH Urology later that day, and the procedure was

scheduled for the following month. (Id. at pp. 14, 16).

The cystoscopy with a prostate biopsy and bladder biopsy was completed on April

27, 2022, by Dr. Stokes, a urologist at SIH Urology. (Id. at pp. 19, 116). The biopsy revealed

benign (non-cancerous) prostatic tissue from the prostate biopsy and benign urothelial

tissue from the bladder biopsy. (Id.). Black was prescribed tamsulosin, an alpha-blocker

medication that treats the symptoms of an enlarged prostate, which also can be used to

treat BPH. (Docs. 99-2 at p. 3; 99-3 at p. 3). Another nurse practitioner prescribed the

antibiotic Cipro, 500 mg, twice per day for five days. (Doc. 99-4 at pp. 21, 143).

After returning to Menard from SIH Urology, Black could not urinate on his own.

(Id. at p. 19). He went to the healthcare unit, where his bladder was found to be distended

and tender to palpation. (Id.). The nurse inserted a foley catheter and a total of 580 mL of

urine was released, including bloody urine, which relieved Black of his pain and

discomfort. (Id.). The nurse’s note indicated that education was provided, and Black was

returned to his cellhouse. (Id.). In a signed declaration, Black stated that he was not given

any aftercare instructions, alcohol pads, iodine, white vinegar, or any oral or written

instructions on how to care for urinary retention. (Doc. 84 at p. 2).

The next day, April 28, 2022, Black returned to healthcare again complaining of

abdominal pain and urinary retention. (Doc. 99-4 at p. 20). His bladder was “grossly

distended” and tender to palpation. (Id.). The nurse spoke to Dr. Myers, who ordered a

foley catheter insertion. (Doc. 99-3 at p. 4). Upon insertion, over 1000 mL of bloody tinged

urine was release. (Id.). The nurse also spoke to Dr. Myers about the need for foley

placement and/or irrigation. (Id.). The nurse continued the foley catheter per Dr. Myers’s

orders, noting no clots observed, good flow of urine, and no need for irrigation at that

time. (Id.). The nurse also planned to call the urologist to discuss complications. (Id.).

NP Crane reviewed Black’s chart on April 29, 2022. (Id. at p. 22). She called SIH

Urology and spoke to someone who was going to send an urgent message to Dr. Stokes

for further orders. (Id.). SIH Urology called back the same day and instructed NP Crane

to leave the catheter in for one week, as bloody urine and urinary retention are common

after the procedure. (Id. at p. 23). Dr. Stokes also directed her to extend the prescription

for the antibiotic Cipro to 10 days. (Id.).

On May 6, 2022, NP Dearmond removed Black’s catheter without difficulty. (Id. at

p. 27). Black attested that NP Dearmond did not make sure he could urinate before

sending him back to his cell house. (Doc. 84 at p. 3). The next day, Black returned to

healthcare in a wheelchair due to pain while urinating. (Doc. 99-4 at p. 27). Black

complained of only being able to urinate a “trickle.” (Id.). Another catheter was inserted,

and 900 mL of urine was released. (Id.). The foley catheter remained in place over the

weekend until SIH Urology could be contacted. (Id. at p. 28).

NP Dearmond called SIH Urology on May 9, 2022, and asked for Dr. Stokes’s

advice on next steps. (Id. at p. 29). A physician assistant at SIH Urology called back the

following day and told NP Dearmond to leave the foley catheter in place and replace it

every four weeks until Black could be seen by urology. (Id. at p. 31).

Black saw the physician assistant at SIH Urology on June 1, 2022. (Id. at pp. 35, 124-

134). Black’s catheter was removed at the visit, and his medications were adjusted. (Id.).

The urologist also recommended insertion of a foley catheter for one week with bladder

training. (Id. at p. 38). Black was directed to follow up in three months. (Id. at p. 128).

The catheter removal did not last; Black returned to healthcare at 1 a.m. on June 2,

2022, unable to urinate. (Id. at p. 39). A catheter was reinserted due to urinary retention.

(Doc. 99-3 at p. 6). Dr. Myers confirmed that placement of the foley catheter was

appropriate and instructed NP Dearmond to leave the catheter in place if return was

greater than 600 mL. (Id.). That was the last time Dr. Myers was involved in Black’s care.

(Id.). Because 1000 mL of urine was voided, NP Dearmond left the catheter in place and

instructed Black on how to use a catheter bag. (Doc. 99-4 at pp. 36-37). She also made a

call to Urology to follow up. (Id.).

On June 4, 2022, NP Dearmond reviewed Black’s labs that were taken on June 2,

2022, and noted possible epididymitis, a condition that causes inflammation of the

epididymis, which is a tube-shaped structure located behind the testicles. (Doc. 99-4 at

p. 41; Doc. 99-2 at p. 6). Epididymitis is treated by antibiotics, so NP Dearmond prescribed

doxycycline, 100 mg twice per day for 10 days. (Doc. 99-4 at p. 41; Doc. 99-2 at p. 6).

Black was scheduled for a follow up appointment with urology on June 17, 2022,

where he had a urine culture and PSA screening. (Id. at p. 150). Additional labs were

drawn on June 30, 2022, which indicated a bacterial infection. (Id. at pp. 153-54).

NP Moldenhauer prescribed Bactrim, twice per day for 10 days, and a repeat of the urine

culture in three weeks. (Id. at pp. 48, 144).

In July, Black was playing basketball in the yard when his catheter was pulled out.

(Id. at p. 48; Doc. 99-1 at p. 33). He told a Correctional Officer, who instructed Black to put

in a nurse sick call slip. (Doc. 99-1 at p. 33). Black did so. (Id. at p. 34). Black testified that

when CMT Lang came by his cell while passing out medications, she told Black she

“wasn’t putting it back in.” (Id.). Black testified he had to wait 24 hours to have the

catheter reinserted. (Id.). Black’s medical record from July 21 indicates Black was able to

urinate on his own for approximately eight hours after the catheter was pulled out, but

he was no longer able to urinate independently. (Doc. 99-4 at p. 48). A new catheter was

inserted. (Id.).

Labs were drawn again on August 4, 2022. (Id. at pp. 50, 155-56). NP Crane planned

to call Black over to discuss the results and options, including a prescription for Levaquin.

(Id. at pp. 53, 145). Black returned to NP Dearmond on August 10, 2022, to discuss his

urinary tract infection (“UTI”). (Id. at p. 55). NP Dearmond noted that Black needed to

start on Levaquin, and she had him sign a consent form. (Id. at p. 55; Doc. 99-1 at p. 57).

NP Dearmond further discussed the treatment plan and explained that Black would

begin bladder training once the UTI resolved. (Doc. 99-4 at p. 55).

On August 12, 2022, NP Crane reviewed Black’s labs from August 4, 2025, which

showed no UTI. (Id. at p. 56). Thus, she discontinued the Levaquin prescription. (Id.).

CMT Lang told Black that the Levaquin prescription was canceled. (Doc. 99-1 at p. 58).

CMT Lang is not licensed to prescribe medications and does not have the authority to

cancel medications that have been prescribed. (Doc. 108-2).

Additional lab work was completed on August 25, 2022, including a lipid panel,

urine culture, and urinalysis. (Id. at pp. 157-58). NP Dearmond reviewed the lab results

on August 30, 2022, and noted abnormal results. (Id. at p. 59). NP Dearmond prescribed

Cipro twice per day for 10 days and directed that the foley catheter should remain in

place until Black saw the urologist the following week. (Id.).

On September 7, 2022, Black again saw NP Dearmond and voiced concerns about

his urinary retention and the replacement of his foley catheter. (Id. at p. 62).

NP Dearmond placed him on the treatment board for a catheter change. (Id. at p. 62). She

also advised Black that he was scheduled for a urology follow-up that week, but it had

been canceled by the urologist. (Id. at p. 63). The appointment was rescheduled for

October 2022. (Id. at p. 62). NP Dearmond further discussed removal of the catheter with

bladder training, but Black indicated he would rather keep the foley catheter in place

until he saw the urologist. (Id. at p. 63).

Black alleges that on September 16, 2022, he went to the healthcare unit to have his

catheter changed, but CMT Lang told him there were no catheters available. (Doc. 99-1 at

p. 58). Black further testified that he could not say whether CMT Lang was lying, but she

always had someone else change his catheter. (Id. at p. 59). On the occasions when she

did change it, he testified, there would always be a problem with it—like blood coming

out or it not being placed correctly. (Id. at p. 60).

Black had his catheter replaced on September 18, 2022, October 9, 2022, and

November 9, 2022, and December 24, 2022. (Id. at pp. 65, 68, 76).

In October 2022, Black told CMT Lang he wanted some labs done, but she told him

they would be conducted at his urology appointment. (Doc. 99-1 at pp. 60-61). CMT Lang

is not licensed to order lab testing for an individual in custody. (Doc. 108-2).

On October 14, 2022, Black’s urine tested positive for a UTI, but otherwise Black

had no complaints of pain, discomfort, or UTI symptoms. (Doc. 99-4 at pp. 69-70, 73, 149).

Meanwhile, SIH Urology delayed Black’s appointment to December 8, 2022. (Id. at p. 72).

NP Dearmond attested that the urologist’s recommendation was to replace Black’s

catheter every four weeks and that the Cleveland Clinic’s recommendation is to change

a foley catheter at least every three months. She further attested that she instructed Black

on how to keep his catheter clean and in place. (Doc. 99-2 at pp. 10-11). She was not

involved with the timing or cancellation of appointments at SIH Urology. (Id.). At no time

relevant to this case did Black develop a staph infection.2 (Doc. 99-2 at p. 10).

Black filed this lawsuit on December 16, 2022, alleging an Eighth Amendment

deliberate indifference claim. (Doc. 1). Black asserts that, despite having complaints of

urinary retention, Dr. Myers merely ordered that Black’s catheter be replaced rather than

seeking the cause of his bladder issues. (Doc. 19). As a result, Black continued to have

issues with urinary retention, and the continuous removal and replacement of the

2 In Black’s Motion for Summary Judgment, he attests that he went to the Emergency Room for sepsis due

to an infection caused by his foley catheter in August 2023. (Doc. 86 at p. 6). He also states that in May 2024,

he spent three days in the hospital clinging to life with sepsis from his catheter. (Id.). These alleged events

occurred after Black filed this case and, thus, are not part of his Complaint. (See Doc. 1). Furthermore, Black

does not associate these events with any actions or inaction by the named Defendants.

catheter resulted in scarring and infections. (Id.). Black asserts that NP Dearmond

canceled his prescribed antibiotics for a staph infection in August 2022 and also delayed

ordering labs, getting results, and providing antibiotics at other times, resulting in him

having staph infections. (Id.). She also did not change the catheter in the required time,

allowing Black to go well over 30 days before receiving a new catheter. (Id.). Finally, Black

asserts that he had to write several sick call slips before CMT Lang would refer him to

NP Dearmond for his infections. (Id.). He also claims that CMT Lang delayed changing

his catheter, refused to order labs, and refused to put his catheter back in on July 20, 2022.

(Id.). Black alleges these delays led to infections and delays in receiving treatment.

Black filed a motion for summary judgment on November 18, 2024 (Doc. 84), and

Defendants timely responded (Docs. 104, 110). Dr. Myers and NP Dearmond filed their

motion for summary judgment on February 13, 2025 (Doc. 98), and CMT Lang filed a

motion for summary judgment on March 20, 2025 (Doc. 107). As noted above, Black did

not respond to Defendants’ motions.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute of material

fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). In

determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court views the evidence and

draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Ziccarelli v. Dart,

35 F.4th 1079, 1083 (7th Cir. 2022). Once the moving party sets forth the basis for summary

judgment, the burden 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, 323-24 (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.

DISCUSSION

“The Eighth Amendment proscribes ‘deliberate indifference to serious medical

needs of prisoners’ amounting to ‘the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’” Arce

v. Wexford Health Sources Inc., 75 F.4th 673, 678–79 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Stockton v.

Milwaukee County, 44 F.4th 605, 614 (7th Cir. 2022)). “Deliberate indifference requires

‘[s]omething more than negligence or even malpractice.’” Id. at 679 (quoting Pyles v.

Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014)). To succeed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate

indifference claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) he suffered from an objectively serious

medical condition; and (2) the individual defendant was deliberately, that is subjectively,

indifferent to that condition. Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1049 (7th Cir. 2019).

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) (citation omitted). It is not necessary for a

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).

Defendants do not dispute that Black had a serious medical condition, so the Court turns

to the subjective prong.

Prevailing on the subjective prong requires a plaintiff to show that a prison official

has subjective knowledge of—and then disregards—an excessive risk to inmate health.

Id. at 653. The plaintiff need not show the individual “literally ignored” his complaint,

but that the individual knew of the condition and either knowingly or recklessly

disregarded it. Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 524 (7th Cir. 2008). “Something more than

negligence or even malpractice is required” to prove deliberate indifference. Pyles v.

Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, at 409 (7th Cir. 2014). The defendant must have had “actual, personal

knowledge of a serious risk, coupled with the lack of any reasonable response to it.”

Ayoubi v. Dart, 724 F. App’x 470, 474 (7th Cir. 2018). Proving deliberate indifference “is a

high bar ‘because it requires a showing [of] something approaching a total unconcern for

the prisoner’s welfare in the face of serious risks.’” Rasho v. Jeffreys, 22 F.4th 703, 710 (7th

Cir. 2022) (quoting Rosario v. Brawn, 670 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2012)).

I. NP Dearmond and Dr. Myers’s Motion for Summary Judgment

NP Dearmond argues she was not deliberately indifferent to Black’s medical needs

when the evidence shows she continually treated his urological issues. NP Dearmond

contends that she made repeated attempts to schedule the cystoscopy and biopsies with

SIH Urology, she followed up with the urologist when needed, she constantly changed

Black’s catheter in conformity with the recommended guidelines, and when Black

showed symptoms of an infection, she prescribed antibiotics to treat it.

The Court agrees with NP Dearmond. The record belies Black’s claim that she

delayed prescribing antibiotics when he had an infection. For example, Black had labs

drawn on June 2, 2022, and the results were reviewed by NP Dearmond just two days

later. Noting signs of possible epididymitis, NP Dearmond prescribed doxycycline. Black

also had labs drawn on August 25, 2022, which NP Dearmond reviewed on August 30,

2022. Upon review, she prescribed the antibiotic Cipro. Despite Black’s allegations to the

contrary, he never had a staph infection during the relevant time period. And it was NP

Crane, not NP Dearmond, who canceled his prescription for Levaquin when NP Crane

realized his labs showed no active UTI.

Black has also failed to set forth any evidence to contradict NP Dearmond’s

evidence that foley catheters should be changed at least every three months and that his

catheter was changed nearly every month. At most, Black went 43 days without a catheter

change, which is still well below the recommended three months. There is simply no

evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that NP Dearmond knowingly or

recklessly disregarded an excessive risk to Black’s health. Summary judgment will be

granted in her favor.

The Court also finds that Dr. Myers is entitled to summary judgment. Black has

not set forth any evidence to show that Dr. Myers was deliberately indifferent to his

urinary retention and infections. In fact, the evidence reveals the contrary. On April 28,

2022, Dr. Myers provided prompt medical orders via telephone to insert a foley catheter,

which released Black’s urine and provided him with relief. When Dr. Myers was

consulted again on June 2, 2022, he confirmed that placement of the foley catheter was

appropriate and directed the nurse to leave the catheter in place if the urine return was

greater than 600 mL, which it was. To the extent Black claims that Dr. Myers merely

ordered his catheter to be replaced rather than seeking the cause of his bladder issues, the

evidence is well established that SIH Urology was regularly consulted as to Black’s

urological problems, and that Black was scheduled for follow up appointments at SIH

Urology. The fact that Black’s appointments were pushed back by the urologist has no

bearing on his claims against Dr. Myers. Dr. Myers is entitled to summary judgment.

II. CMT Lang’s Motion for Summary Judgment

CMT Lang likewise asserts she is entitled to summary judgment because the

evidence is clear that Black was continually treated for medical issues related to his

catheter. She argues there are no medical records showing that she refused to put Black’s

catheter back in—or any interaction between them whatsoever—on July 20, 2022. Even

accepting Black’s allegations as true, however, CMT Lang contends that any delay caused

by her does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. As to Black’s claim that she told

him on September 16, 2022, that there were no catheters in the healthcare unit, Black

testified that he had no reason to believe CMT Lang was lying and that Lang does not

order supplies for the facility. Finally, with regard to Black’s allegation that CMT Lang

would not order labs for him in October 2022, the evidence demonstrates that CMT Lang

is not licensed to order labs for a person in custody, there is no record of Black seeing

CMT Lang in October 2022, and Black indeed had labs taken on October 20, 2022.

The Court agrees that there is no evidence that CMT Lang had any authority to

order supplies for the facility or to order lab work for Black. And Black agreed he has no

reason to think CMT Lang was lying in September 2022 when she said there were no

catheters available. The Court finds no deliberate indifference with regard to these

allegations.

The Court cannot say the same regarding the alleged encounter on July 20, 2022.

Black testified that CMT Lang was his “primary person” when it came to his catheter.

(Doc. 99-1 at pp. 53-57). He explained that he went to her any time his bag leaked, his

catheter came out, or there was a problem with his catheter. (Id.). When his catheter was

pulled out while playing basketball, he was told to put in a sick call slip, which he did.

Black testified that Lang wouldn’t call him to sick call. (Id.). Then, nearly 12 hours after

his catheter came out, Black stopped CMT Lang as she came by to pass out medications.

(Id.). Black testified that he was “freaking out” because he had been drinking water and

he had the urge to urinate but he couldn’t, which caused him severe pain. (Id.). When

Black told CMT Lang his catheter was out, she said “I’m not putting it back in.” (Id.).

Black then had to wait another 12 hours—24 hours total—to have his catheter reinserted.

Black testified that going 24 hours without a catheter made him feel like his bladder

would explode. (Id.).

CMT Lang argues there is no medical record of an encounter with Black on July

20, 2022, but of course there is none. Black claims she refused to call him for sick call, and

he told CMT Lang about his catheter while she was walking through the cell house and

handing out medications. And although CMT Lang attested that she never refused to

place a catheter for Black, Black’s testimony to the contrary is also competent evidence.

When viewing this evidence and all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-

movant, the Court finds that summary judgment is not appropriate. A jury crediting

Black’s testimony could find CMT Lang exhibited deliberate indifference when she had

actual, personal knowledge of a serious risk to Black’s health and that she literally

ignored his complaints by refusing to call him for sick call or to reinsert his catheter. As

a result of her inaction, Black suffered severe pain and felt as if his bladder would

explode. Thus, summary judgment will not be granted to Lang on this claim.

Qualified Immunity

CMT Lang also argues she is entitled to qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity

shields a government official from suit for damages under § 1983 ‘when she makes a

decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law

governing the circumstances she confronted.’ ” Sabo v. Erickson, 128 F.4th 836, 843 (7th

Cir. 2025) (quoting Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194, 198 (2004)). Qualified immunity

applies when (1) the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right

was not “clearly established” at the time of the challenged conduct. Id. A constitutional

or statutory right is “clearly established” when the law is “sufficiently clear that every

reasonable official would understand that what he is doing is unlawful.” Id. at 843-44

(cleaned up and citation omitted).

Here, Black has set forth evidence that, if credited by the finder of fact, establishes

a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Moreover, “[t]he general standard for

liability under the Eighth Amendment for refusal to treat a serious medical condition was

well-established” when CMT Lang refused to reinsert his catheter. See Walker v. Benjamin,

293 F.3d 1030, 1040 (7th Cir. 2002). Thus, CMT Lang is not protected by qualified

immunity.

III. Black’s Motion for Summary Judgment

After providing his declaration and statement of facts, Black argues he is entitled

to summary judgment because, before his cystoscopy with biopsies, he could urinate on

his own. Afterward, he could not urinate on his own. And in the minutes, hours, and

days immediately after his cystoscopy, Dr. Myers was “personally in charge” of his

situation. (Doc. 84). Moreover, Black avers, the removal and replacement of the catheter

caused scarring and inflammation, and he had to fight to get labs to diagnose UTIs and

staph infections. (Id.).

Despite Black’s argument to the contrary, the evidence in the record shows that

Dr. Myers was not personally responsible for any damage done by the cystoscopy or

biopsies. Nor is there any evidence, either in the medical records or in Black’s testimony,

to support his claims that he had scarring and inflammation as a result of his catheter.

Moreover, the record is replete with evidence of lab work that was done on nearly a

monthly basis. To the extent Black wanted more labs taken, “a prisoner may not dictate

his own course of treatment.” Page v. Obaisi, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1103 (N.D. Ill. 2018).

Finally, as to Black’s contention that CMT Lang refused to replace his catheter after it

came out in June 2022, the Court finds there is a genuine issue of material fact that

precludes summary judgment for either party. Thus, Black’s motion is denied.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Percy

Myers and Alisa Dearmond (Doc. 98) is GRANTED. These Defendants are DISMISSED

with prejudice.

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Aimee Lang (Doc. 107) is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Rodney Black

(Doc. 84) is DENIED.

Plaintiff Rodney Black shall proceed on his claim that Defendant Aimee Lang was

deliberately indifferent in violation of the Eighth Amendment when she refused to

reinsert his catheter in July 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 22, 2025

Thee MM eeiteg

NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL

Chief U.S. District Judge

Page 17 of 17