HOOTEN v. CENTURION HEALTH LLC. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
MICHAEL HOOTEN, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML
)
CENTURION HEALTH LLC., 	)
BYRD, 	)
JOHN DOE, 	)
OFFICER LAMB, 	)
OFFICER WILSON, 	)
MICHAEL HANS, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER SCREENING SEVENTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, DENYING MOTION
FOR COUNSEL, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS,
AND DIRECTING FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Michael Hooten is a prisoner currently incarcerated at Wabash
Valley Correctional Facility ("Wabash Valley"). He filed this civil action raising a
variety of federal and state law claims.
Mr. Hooten has filed a motion to appoint counsel, dkt. 49, a motion for
leave to file a sixth amended complaint, dkt. 59, a motion to rule as moot, dkt.
71, a motion for leave to file a seventh amended complaint, dkt. 82, and a
motion for copies, dkt. 83. Defendant Dr. Michael Hans has filed a motion to
dismiss, dkt. 68, which the Court addresses below.
I. 	Pending Motions
On April 10, 2025, this Court denied Mr. Hooten's motion to appoint
counsel without prejudice. See dkts. 25, 32. Mr. Hooten's newly filed motion to
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
appoint counsel does not offer any additional facts or reasoning that would
cause the outcome to be different. Dkt. 49. For this reason, his renewed motion
to appoint counsel, dkt. [49], is denied.
As to the motion to rule as moot, Mr. Hooten requests that the Court
"only screen [his] sixth amended complaint" at docket 59, and "rule [his] fourth
and fifth amendments as moot." Dkt. 71 at 1. Because Mr. Hooten has since
filed an additional motion for leave to amend his complaint, his motion to rule
as moot, dkt. [71], and his motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint,
dkt. [59], are denied as moot. For this reason, his motion for leave to file a
seventh amended complaint, dkt. [82], is granted.
Mr. Hooten's motion for copies specifically requests a copy of the Order
Screening Third Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings at
docket 39. Dkt. 83. His motion for copies, dkt. [83], is granted.
Because the plaintiff is a "prisoner," this Court must screen the amended
complaint before service on the defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). However,
before the Court screens Mr. Hooten's seventh amended complaint, it provides
the following warning: District courts "'have broad discretion to deny leave to
amend where there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, repeated failure
to cure deficiencies, undue prejudice to the defendants, or where the
amendment would be futile.'" Gonzalez-Koeneke v. West, 791 F.3d 801, 807
(7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Arreola v. Godinez, 546 F.3d 788, 796 (7th Cir. 2008)).
Mr. Hooten has filed excessive amended complaints in this case and in others.
See 2:24-cv-00379-JPH-DML and 2:25-cv-00238-MPB-DML. The Court
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
emphasizes that motions for leave to amend the complaint should be filed
sparingly, such as when identifying or adding a defendant, or a claim. However,
amendments that provide additional facts or seek to provide further
justification for claims that are already proceeding are unnecessary. Motions
for leave to amend that come after screening are problematic in terms of the
parties' and Court's time, expenditures, and ability to ensure justice in a timely
manner. Future requests to amend the complaint in this action will be denied
absent a showing of good cause for the amendment.
II. 	Screening Standard
When screening a complaint, the Court must dismiss any portion that is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). To
determine whether the complaint states a claim, the Court applies the same
standard as when addressing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993 (7th Cir. 2020).
Under that standard, a complaint must include "enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that 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). The Court construes pro se complaints liberally and holds them to
a "less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by lawyers." Cesal v. Moats,
851 F.3d 714, 720 (7th Cir. 2017).
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
III. 	The Seventh Amended Complaint
In the seventh amended complaint Mr. Hooten names five defendants: (1)
Centurion Health LLC; (2) Dr. Samuel Byrd; (3) Dr. Michael Hans; (4)
Correctional Officer Lamb; and (5) Correctional Officer Wilson. Dkt. 82-1. He
sues each in their individual and official capacity.
Mr. Hooten bases his seventh amended complaint on the following
allegations, which the Court assumes to be true for purposes of screening:
Mr. Hooten was previously diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). He
was seen by a neurologist at Indiana University Health (IU) in January 2023
who scheduled an MRI for Mr. Hooten in March 2023. Id. at 7. Mr. Hooten's
March 2023 MRI showed disease progression. Id. He was scheduled to see
another IU neurologist, Dr. Hans, in November 2023. Id.
Mr. Hooten told Correctional Officers Lamb and Wilson about his medical
condition before they began transporting him to IU. Id. at 15. However, the
officers stopped at multiple fast-food restaurants on the way to Mr. Hooten's
appointment causing him to be late for the appointment by an hour. Id. at 14.
Mr. Hooten had asked the officers when his appointment was, and they
responded that the appointment was "whenever we get there." Id. at 15. Mr.
Hooten was not seen that day as the appointment was cancelled due to his
tardiness. Id. Because of this incident, officers are no longer permitted to stop
for lunch when transporting an inmate to an outside medical appointment. Id.
Mr. Hooten's appointment was rescheduled for March 2024. Id. at 7.
During that appointment, Dr. Hans mentioned that he would have been willing
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to modify Mr. Hooten's treatment if he had received Mr. Hooten's March 2023
MRI results, but he had made no attempt to get them, despite the fact that the
March 2023 MRI took place at IU. Id. Dr. Hans ordered another MRI to take
place in June 2024. Id.
Due to Centurion and Dr. Byrd's failure to forward documentation of Mr.
Hooten's previous MRI and Dr. Hans' failure to procure a copy of it, Mr. Hooten
was unable to receive timely care, which resulted in progression of his MS that
resulted in permanent disabilities. Id. at 12.
Centurion has a practice wherein it maintains two sets of incomplete
medical records of an inmate – one that is digital to be shared with outside
medical providers, and one that is made up of physical copies that only the
facility healthcare director has access to. Id. at 21. When an inmate requests a
copy of the records from the facility health care director, the request is denied
due to "safety and security concerns" and "personal information." Id. This
prevents inmates from being able take their complete medical records to their
outside medical provider and discuss proper treatment with them to avoid
further injury. Id.
Leading up to the June 2024 MRI, Mr. Hooten experienced significant
physical decline. Id. at 12. He had an MS relapse in April 2024 and now
requires assistance with his normal daily activities including walking, as he
has lost use of his right leg. Id. He also experiences mobility issues in other
limbs. Id. at 11-12.
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
In October 2024, Mr. Hooten had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Hans
and provided him with copies of his MRI results from both March 2023 and
June 2024. Id. at 16. Dr. Hans reviewed the results along with images on his
computer and conducted an examination of Mr. Hooten. Id. Dr. Hans then
stated that he believed Mr. Hooten was faking the extent of his injury and
proceeded to write new medical orders. Id. Dr. Hans ordered Dr. Byrd to keep
Mr. Hooten on the same treatment for thirty days and then start him on
Ocrevus, a medication for MS. Id. However, within a week Dr. Hans called the
prison and told Dr. Byrd to start Mr. Hooten on the new treatment as soon as
possible. Id. Mr. Hooten believes starting on Ocrevus sooner could have
prevented his further injuries from MS. Id.
Dr. Hans ordered another MRI (with and without contrast) to be
scheduled about six months after Mr. Hooten started Ocrevus. Id. at 19. That
MRI took place on July 3, 2025, but the prison medical staff had only ordered
the MRI without contrast. Id. On July 9, Mr. Hooten saw Dr. Hans, but medical
had once again failed to forward the results of the MRI to Dr. Hans. Id. Because
of this, Mr. Hooten could not be properly treated. Id. As of the filing of the
seventh amended complaint, Mr. Hooten had yet to have a follow-up
appointment regarding the results of his July 3 MRI. Id.
Additionally, Mr. Hooten is not housed in a handicap cell. Id. at 21. Staff
controls the power and often refuses to turn it on, leaving inmates without
running water, and causing them to urinate in the handicap shower. Id.
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Mr. Hooten notes in his amended complaint that all of his treatment and
testing for his MS has occurred at IU Health.
Mr. Hooten seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's
fees if appropriate, and injunctive relief in the form of an Order ensuring that
Defendants adequately handle Mr. Hooten's future medical needs.
IV. 	Discussion of Claims
Applying the screening standard to the factual allegations in the seventh
amended complaint, certain claims are dismissed while other claims shall
proceed as submitted.
First, any claim under the Rehabilitation Act or Americans with
Disabilities Act is unrelated to the claims proceeding in this case. Although the
claims arise out of Mr. Hooten's MS diagnosis, he does not allege that
Centurion Defendants or the transporting officers are responsible or involved
with accommodations for disabled inmates in the Indiana Department of
Correction ("IDOC"), and it is unlikely that they would be responsible for
providing such accommodations. "Individual liability under § 1983 … requires
personal involvement in the alleged constitutional deprivation." Colbert v. City
of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted).
Unrelated claims against different defendants cannot proceed in a single
lawsuit. See Owens v. Godinez, 860 F.3d 434, 436 (7th Cir. 2017). Rule 20(a)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a plaintiff to join defendants in
a single action if "(A) any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any
question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action." If Mr.
Hooten would like to file a complaint about these circumstances, he may do so
in a separate action. Therefore, any claims related to his lack of access to a
handicap cell and the condition of the handicap shower are dismissed without
prejudice.
Second, to the extent that Mr. Hooten wishes to bring state-law
malpractice claims against Dr. Hans, Dr. Byrd, and Centurion, there is nothing
in the seventh amended complaint indicating he complied with the Indiana
Medical Malpractice Act's requirement that he first seek review of his claims by
a medical review panel before filing suit.1 See Metz v. St. Joseph Reg'l Med.
Center-Plymouth Campus, Inc., 115 N.E.3d 489, 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018)
(noting that a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider medical
malpractice claim unless it has first been considered by a medical review
panel); Castelli v. Steele, 700 F. Supp. 449, 455–56 (S.D. Ind. 1988) (dismissing
Indiana medical malpractice claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where
plaintiff did not seek medical review panel opinion before filing suit). Mr.
Hooten's negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED")
claims against Dr. Hans, Dr. Byrd, and Centurion are directly related to his
medical malpractice claim, and therefore also covered by Indiana Medical
Malpractice Act. See Union Hospital v. Reagin, 2025 WL 2319037 *3, 267 N.E.
1 Indeed, the failure to comply with the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act was the basis
for Dr. Hans's motion to dismiss, which Mr. Hooten did not respond to. See dkt. 68.
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
3d 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2025) (affirming summary judgment of IIED
claims explaining that the IIED claims were "merely a repackaging of his
medical malpractice claims" and therefore fell under "the purview of the MMA")
(citing Cutchin v. Beard, 171 N.E.3d 991, 997 (Ind. 2021), Gierek v. Anonymous
1, 250 N.E.3d 378, 387 (Ind. 2025), and Van Sice v. Sentany, 595 N.E.2d 264,
266 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)). All state-law medical negligence/malpractice and
IIED claims against Dr. Hans, Dr. Byrd, and Centurion are dismissed.
The following claims shall proceed:
• 	A Monell claim against Centurion as an Eighth Amendment
deliberate indifference claim based on the allegation that its
practice of denying inmates access to their complete medical
records prevented Mr. Hooten from being able to discuss and
receive proper treatment from an outside provider.
• 	Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against
Correctional Officers Lamb and Wilson based on Mr. Hooten's
allegation that they caused him to be late to and ultimately miss
his November 2023 MRI appointment (rescheduled to March 2024)
after making three stops at fast-food restaurants.
• 	Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims against Dr. Byrd
and Dr. Hans based on Mr. Hooten's allegation that, by failing to
provide him timely care (that included the review of his March
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
2023 MRI results), Mr. Hooten experienced serious and irreversible
progression of his MS.
• 	State-law breach-of-contract claims shall proceed against
Centurion on the theory that Mr. Hooten is a third-party
beneficiary to the contract between Centurion and IDOC to provide
constitutionally adequate medical care to inmates. See Dodd v.
Wexford Med. Inc., No. 3:19CV299- PPS/MGG, 2021 WL 1634424,
at *4 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 27, 2021) (permitting similar claim to proceed,
but noting that plaintiff may not be able to demonstrate that he is
an intended beneficiary of the contract); Harper v. Corizon Health
Inc., No. 2:17-CV-228-JMS-DLP, 2018 WL 6019595, at *8-9 (S.D.
Ind. Nov. 16, 2018) (dismissing a breach of contract claim against
Corizon on summary judgment because the plaintiff did not
demonstrate that he was a third-party beneficiary of the contract
between Corizon and the IDOC)).
• 	Indiana negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress
claims against Officer Lamb and Officer Wilson based on
allegations of delayed medical care.
This summary of claims includes all of the viable claims identified by the
Court. All other claims have been dismissed.
V. 	Defendant Dr. Michael Hans's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Michael Hans filed a motion to dismiss negligence claims
brought against him by Mr. Hooten. Dkt. 68. Dr. Hans argues that all
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
negligence claims should be dismissed because he is "a qualified provider
under the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act [and Mr. Hooten's] claims for
malpractice against [him] are subject to the medical review board, as required
by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act." Id. at 3. As determined earlier in this
screening no claims for negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress
are proceeding against Dr. Hans because nothing in Mr. Hooten's complaint
indicated that he complied with the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's
requirement that he first seek review of his claims by a medical review panel
before filing suit. For this reason, Dr. Hans' motion to dismiss, dkt. [68], is
denied as moot.
VI. 	Conclusion and Reissuance of Process
For the reasons discussed, Mr. Hooten's motion to appoint counsel, dkt.
[49], is denied. Mr. Hooten's motion to rule as moot, dkt. [71], and his motion
for leave to file a sixth amended complaint, dkt. [59], are denied as moot. His
motion for leave to file a seventh amended complaint, dkt. [82], and his motion
for copies, dkt. [83], are granted.
The clerk is directed to include a copy of the Order Screening Third
Amended Complaint and Directing Further Proceedings, dkt. 39, with Mr.
Hooten's copy of this Order.
The clerk is directed to re-docket the proposed complaint at dkt. 82-1
as the Seventh Amended Complaint. This is now the operative complaint in this
action.
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
Defendant Dr. Michael Hans's motion to dismiss, dkt. [68], is denied as
moot.
The Court screened Plaintiff's original complaint on January 28, 2025,
and issued process to Defendants Dr. Byrd and Centurion Health, LLC. Dkts.
13, 14. The Court screened Plaintiff's third amended complaint on June 6,
2025, and issued process to Defendants Officer Lamb, Officer Wilson, and Dr.
Michael Hans. Dkts. 39, 41. Defendants Officer Lamb and Officer Wilson have
not waived service or otherwise responded. The clerk is directed pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) to reissue process to Defendants Officer Lamb and Officer
Wilson. Process shall consist of the complaint, dkt. 82-1, applicable forms
(Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons and Waiver of
Service of Summons), and this Entry. The clerk is directed to issue process to
the Defendants electronically.
Additionally, the clerk is directed to mail courtesy copies of this Order
to Robert Bugher at the Indiana Department of Correction and Patricia
Erdmann at the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.
Nothing in this Order prohibits the filing of a proper motion pursuant to
Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED.
Date: 2/9/2026
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
Distribution:
MICHAEL HOOTEN
988796
WABASH VALLEY - CF
Wabash Valley Correctional Facility
6908 S. Old US Hwy 41
CARLISLE, IN 47838
Electronic service to Indiana Department of Correction:
Officer Lamb
Officer Wilson
(All at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility)
Electronic service to Centurion
All Electronically Registered Counsel
Courtesy Copy:
Patricia Orloff Erdmann
Chief Counsel of Litigation
Office of the Indiana Attorney General
302 West Washington St.
IGCS 5th Floor
Indianapolis, IN 	46204
Robert Bugher
Indiana Department of Correction
E334 Indiana Government Center South
302 W. Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Case 2:24-cv-00482-JPH-DML Document 92 Filed 02/09/26 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
<pageID>