Thompson, Quenton v. Utter, Hannah et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
QUENTON THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
HANNAH UTTER, ALANA ACKER,
LAURA SUKOWATY, BONNIE ALT,
DENISE VALERIUS, JAIME ADAMS,
SHERYL KINYON, and JAMES MURPHY,
Defendants.1
OPINION and ORDER
23-cv-381-jdp
Plaintiff Quenton Thompson, proceeding without counsel, alleges that prison staff
failed to properly treat his severe back problems and the pain and numbness in his back, leg,
and foot caused by those problems, both before and after he underwent a microdiscectomy
surgery. Thompson originally brought Eighth Amendment medical care claims against a long
list of defendants. Through my previous orders, Thompson’s claims have been whittled down
to only certain aspects of his treatment, against two officials who treated him at Wisconsin
Secure Program Facility and six others who treated him at Columbia Correctional Institution.
The Wisconsin Department of Justice represents all but one of the defendants; they
move for summary judgment. The remaining defendant, Dr. James Murphy, separately moves
for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, I will grant both of those motions and
dismiss the case.
1 I have amended the caption to include defendant Murphy’s first name.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 1 of 20

2
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
At the dispositive motions deadline, Thompson filed a motion for production of emails
between defendants that I construed as a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 144. I concluded
that I wouldn’t delay summary judgment briefing to resolve this late-filed motion, but because
Thompson could still seek discovery before the trial date, I directed the state defendants to
respond. In their response, the state defendants state that they did not fully respond to
Thompson’s request for emails due to confusion among the changing roster of DOJ attorneys
handling his various discovery requests, and that they would have prison officials sort through
and redact the relevant emails and produce them to Thompson. Thompson doesn’t press the
issue further. I will deny his motion to compel as moot.
After filing his summary judgment materials, Thompson renewed his motion for the
court’s assistance in recruiting him counsel, stating that he has mental health problems and
learning disabilities, and that this case is particularly complex given the medical issues involved.
Dkt. 195. I will deny Thompson’s motion because he has done an adequate job of responding
to defendants’ summary judgment motions. As I discuss in more detail below, his submissions
do not fully comply with this court’s summary judgment procedures, but his submissions do
make clear the disputed issues of fact and law in this case. Ultimately, the problem with his
claims isn’t his limitations in presenting his case. Rather, the medical records and other
evidence submitted by the parties show that some of Thompson’s allegations are unsupported
by the facts, and otherwise defendants have not consciously disregarded his medical needs.
I turn to defendants’ summary judgment motions.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 2 of 20

3
UNDISPUTED FACTS
I begin by addressing flaws in Thompson’s summary judgment materials. Thompson
did 	not 	follow 	this 	court’s 	summary 	judgment 	procedures 	by 	submitting 	stand-alone
documents responding to each of defendants’ proposed findings of fact and citing evidence
supporting his version of the facts. See attachment to Dkt. 32, at 4. Instead he scatters
responses to some of defendants’ proposed findings, along with his own supplemental proposed
findings, among several documents that Thompson concludes by stating under penalty of
perjury that his statements are true. See Dkts. 164–67, 181. He also filed two substantially
similar copies of his materials responding to the state defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. Defendants ask me to consider their own proposed findings as undisputed. But given
the generosity with which I must construe pro se filings, I will consider Thompson’s various
sworn responses as declarations and I will not deem undisputed the facts that Thompson
disputes with proper evidence in his response materials.
A. Parties
Plaintiff Quenton Thompson is an inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department
of Corrections. Relevant to the events in this case, he was housed at Wisconsin Secure Program
Facility (WSPF) until November 2019, and at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI)
between May 2020 and March 2024.
Defendants Jaime Adams and Sheryl Kinyon worked at WSPF: Adams was the assistant
health services manager and then the health services manager, and Kinyon was a nurse clinician
and then the assistant health services manager. Defendants Alana Acker, Bonnie Alt, and
Denise Valerius worked at CCI: Acker was the assistant health services manager and then the
health services manager, and Alt and Valerius were nurse clinicians. Defendant Laura
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 3 of 20

4
Sukowaty, a physician, was an associate medical director for the DOC’s Bureau of Health
Services and was usually stationed elsewhere but she provided physician coverage at CCI.
Defendant Hanah Utter, a nurse, was the assistant director of nursing for the bureau and was
usually stationed elsewhere but at times she assisted defendant Acker with supervisory duties
at CCI. Defendant James Murphy, who isn’t represented by the state in this case, is a physician
who worked at multiple DOC facilities, including CCI.
B. Treatment before surgery
Thompson has a long history of health problems. His symptoms relevant to this case
are lower back pain with sciatica, leading to pain and numbness in his right leg and foot. At
some point he was diagnosed with a herniated disc with some nerve compression. He also was
diagnosed with plantar fasciitis, contributing to his foot pain.
Thompson’s remaining claims concern two distinct periods of time, the first being while
he was at WSPF in 2019. Thompson was seen multiple times by defendants Adams and Kinyon
for his complaints of back pain and other medical problems. Thompson says that they didn’t
provide him adequate treatment for that pain and that they delayed offsite treatment.
The second set of Thompson’s claims concerns his treatment at CCI, jumping ahead a
couple of years. Defendant Dr. Murphy began treating Thompson in October 2021. By this
time, a previous provider had ordered Thompson a neurosurgery referral for evaluation and to
discuss possible surgical intervention to address his back pain. Murphy saw Thompson several
times in 2021 and the first half of 2022, treating him with various pain medications and aids
like a TENS unit and wheelchair. Thompson was scheduled to see the offsite pain clinic and
neurosurgery in January 2022, but Thompson tested positive for a bacterial infection, so those
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 4 of 20

5
appointments 	had 	to 	be 	cancelled 	and 	rescheduled. 	Murphy 	was 	not 	responsible 	for
rescheduling those appointments.
By June 2022, Thompson reported that his symptoms were getting worse, including
experiencing numbness in his right foot and his rectal and genital areas. Thompson adds that
he told Murphy that he was experiencing incontinence. Murphy’s notes explicitly state that
Thompson wasn’t experiencing incontinence, but at summary judgment I must accept
Thompson’s version of the facts. Murphy told Thompson that he had an upcoming visit
scheduled with pain specialist for a steroid injection to address his back pain. Murphy
responded to Thompson’s new complaints by making another referral to neurosurgery in late
June 2022. He also ordered a lumbar MRI. Support staff attempted to follow up with UW
neurosurgery several days later.
Only days after having been seen by Murphy, Thompson submitted a health services
request complaining of numbness in his buttock down to his right leg and foot, and of pain
during bowel movements. Defendant Nurse Alt responded by referring Thompson to an
advanced care provider, who had the authority to prescribe medication. Alt did not have that
authority.
In early July 2022, Murphy met again with Thompson; his notes state that the
neurosurgery appointment was a “high priority” because of Thompson’s worsening symptoms.
Murphy also placed orders for Tylenol, a special mattress, and cane. Murphy’s note from that
appointment also states that he increased Thompson’s dosage of tramadol “[u]ntil more
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 5 of 20

6
definitive intervention can be done to relieve the pain like the pain clinic injections and
neurosurgery.” Dkt. 135-1, at 8. 2
On July 15, 2022, Thompson was seen by Dr. John Choi offsite for a lumbar steroid
injection. Choi’s note stated: “The patient was originally scheduled for neurosurgery, but
somehow something had changed and the patient was referred for an injection.” Dkt. 159-9.
Based on Choi’s concern with Thompson’s condition following a discussion of his worsening
symptoms, 	Choi 	ordered 	an 	emergency 	MRI, 	which 	led 	to 	Thompson 	receiving
microdiscectomy surgery the next day.
C. Treatment after surgery
Defendant Dr. Sukowaty began treating Thompson in August 2022. In late August,
Sukowaty canceled a neurology appointment scheduled for that December that would have
evaluated the tingling and numbness in Thompson’s leg; that evaluation was rendered moot by
Thompson’s July diagnosis and microdiscectomy.
In early September 2022, Thompson submitted two health service requests. In the first,
he stated that he had numbness in his buttock down into his right leg, knee, and foot. He also
complained of pain during bowel movements and about potentially having his tramadol
discontinued. Alt responded, “You have your surgical follow up very soon.” Dkt. 149-2, at 382.
Thompson was seen offsite for a neurosurgery follow-up four days later.
Thompson’s second request was about his gastroesophageal reflux disease and concern
that his wedge pillow to treat that malady had been taken away. Alt responded by stating,
2 Citations to Thompson’s medical records are to the pagination created by the court’s
electronic filing system, not the internal Bates numbering used by the parties.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 6 of 20

7
“Sorry. The order was still there. Not sure why it fell out of [the electronic record system]. I
added it back.” Id. at 381.
The report from Thompson’s offsite neurosurgery follow-up several days later states
that Thompson reported decreased pain, increased mobility, and improvement with his foot
numbness. The doctor recommended physical therapy, which was approved. Thompson states
that this doctor lied about Thompson’s condition. But it’s undisputed that the doctor’s report
stated that Thompson was improving.
In mid-September 2022, Thompson told medical staff that he was going on a “fluid
strike” because his wedge pillow had gone missing. Around this time Thompson was moved to
the segregation unit. Thompson states that at some point during his placement in segregation,
Sukowaty told him that she would not see or treat him while he was in solitary confinement.
Shortly after Thompson’s placement in segregation, Sukowaty saw him for his
complaints of chest pain. Sukowaty saw Thompson at the end of September 2022 for a follow-
up to surgery and his pain treatment. Sukowaty encouraged Thompson to take Tylenol for his
pain; that drug is filtered through the liver unlike anti-inflammatories, such as ibuprofen, that
are filtered by the kidney and could cause damage if the patient is not drinking fluids.
In mid-November 2022, Sukowaty ordered Thompson naproxen for his pain (it’s
unclear if Thompson was still on his fluid strike by then). In early December, Thompson
requested a restriction mandating that he be handcuffed in front of his body; I infer that he
made this request because of a shoulder injury. Sukowaty responded that he didn’t qualify for
a front-cuff restriction. According to Sukowaty, Thompson’s physical therapist thought that
Thompson’s range of motion was good enough to be cuffed in back.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 7 of 20

8
By mid-December 2022, Thompson was back in segregation. Sukowaty responded to
Thompson’s report of an episode of acute pain by ordering him a Toradol shot. At the end of
December, Thompson wrote a letter to defendant Acker regarding the denial of a front-cuff
restriction. Acker spoke with Sukowaty, who stated that she wasn’t willing to order such a
restriction until she was able to see him; Acker relayed that message to Thompson. In early
January, Sukowaty saw Thompson for complaints that he couldn’t move his right shoulder and
thoughts of self-harm. Sukowaty recommended a sling and she ordered him naproxen.
A few weeks later, Sukowaty saw Thompson for his complaints of lower back pain,
pelvic pain, and foot numbness. Thompson also stated that he had lost his heel lift. Sukowaty
stated that Thompson’s back was likely still healing from the surgery, but she ordered x-rays.
She also ordered a new lift and physical therapy.
Over the next few months, Sukowaty again saw Thompson regarding his back pain.
Throughout that period she ordered him naproxen, ibuprofen, Tylenol, and capsaicin cream,
and renewed his TENS unit.
In April 2023, an MRI showed a recurrence of a bulge at the site of Thompson’s surgery.
D. Medical shoes and heel lift
A 	related 	issue 	in 	this 	case 	concerns 	Thompson’s 	efforts 	to 	obtain 	certain
non-institution athletic shoes and a heel lift.
A couple of weeks after his July 2022 surgery, Thompson submitted a health service
request about denial of shoes from an outside vendor after an offsite appointment. A report
from a podiatrist shortly after the surgery stated, “Recommend continued use of 1 quarter-inch
heel lift in left shoe gear and almost most importantly, non facility new balance DP/2E width
athletic shoes greater than 75 dollars.” Dkt. 149-1, at 685.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 8 of 20

9
The shoe request was forwarded to the “Special Needs Committee,” a body composed
of at least one medical staffer and other security staffers who reviewed requests for medical
restrictions or special needs like a low bunk. Thompson didn’t request a heel lift; he had already
been given one.
Defendant 	Acker 	served 	on 	the 	committee 	for 	this 	request. 	In 	making 	these
determinations, the medical staffers on the committee determine whether a clear medical
necessity for a special item or status is documented. The committee denied Thompson’s request
because there was no clear indication from the podiatrist of why non-institution athletic shoes
were medically necessary, and because Thompson had already had a “medical shoe” request for
“Orthofeet black Velcro ‘bismarck’ style” (recommended by defendant Murphy) approved by
the committee in May 2022. Id. at 496.
In mid-August 2022, Thompson submitted a health service request asking why he had
been denied non-facility New Balance shoes. Defendant Nurse Valerius responded, “New
Balance Shoes are available in the approved catalogs for personal use. State shoes will be either
state-issued brown shoes or Orthofeet Shoes (Bismarck Model) in this institution.” Dkt. 149-2,
at 384.
Thompson filed a grievance about the denial of medical shoes, listing the date of
incident as September 1, 2022. Defendant Utter responded to the complaint examiner’s
inquiry about the issue on behalf of defendant Acker. Utter’s review of Thompson’s medical
records showed that there was no mention of a medical shoe request in the notes of Thompson’s
September 1 meeting with defendant Dr. Sukowaty, but that Thompson did have an approved
order for Orthofeet medical shoes. She told the examiner that “[p]odiatry recommendations
are not DOC orders, they are only recommendations.” Dkt. 53-3, at 7. The examiner
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 9 of 20

10
recommended dismissing the grievance. The reviewing authority dismissed the grievance and
Thompson lost his grievance appeal.
In late December 2022, Thompson met with Acker and asked for a different pair of
medical shoes or a new heel lift. Acker’s note from that meeting states, “Order placed for
orthotics to NovaCare, verbal order per Dr. Sukowaty.” Dkt. 149-1, at 243. The record of that
order show that it was for a “Nova Care heel lift,” and that Sukowaty rescinded that order in
March 2023, with the reason given as “Order Entry Error.” Id. at 489. The prison physical
therapist gave Thompson a new lift about a week before Sukowaty canceled the order. Id. at
516.
I will discuss additional facts as they become relevant to the analysis.
ANALYSIS
The following Eighth Amendment claims remain in the case:
• 	Defendants Adams and Kinyon did nothing in 2019 to help Thompson for his
complaints of back pain and otherwise delayed offsite treatment.
• 	Defendant Murphy changed his referral for surgery to a referral for a pain injection.
• 	Defendants 	Valerius, 	Utter, 	and 	Acker 	didn’t 	follow 	an 	outside 	podiatrist’s
recommendation for a lift in his left shoe and for non-institution athletic shoes.
• 	Defendant Alt did nothing to help him after he complained of continuing pain in
June and September 2022.
• 	Defendant Sukowaty canceled appointments for podiatry, “ortho,” and imaging,
and told him that she would not treat him while he was in solitary confinement.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from acting with conscious disregard
toward prisoners’ serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103–04 (1976). A
“serious medical need” is a condition that a doctor has recognized as needing treatment or one
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 10 of 20

11
for which the necessity of treatment would be obvious to a lay person. Johnson v. Snyder,
444 F.3d 579, 584–85 (7th Cir. 2006). A medical need is serious if it is life-threatening, carries
risks of permanent serious impairment if left untreated, results in needless pain and suffering,
significantly affects an individual’s daily activities, Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d 1364, 1371–73
(7th Cir. 1997), or otherwise subjects the prisoner to a substantial risk of serious harm, Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994).
A defendant “consciously disregards” an inmate’s need when the defendant knows of
and disregards “an excessive risk to an inmate’s health or safety; the official must both be aware
of the facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm
exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Snipes v. Detella, 95 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 1996).
However, inadvertent error, negligence, gross negligence, and ordinary malpractice are not cruel
and unusual punishment within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment. Vance v. Peters,
97 F.3d 987, 992 (7th Cir. 1996).
A. Defendants Adams and Kinyon
Thompson alleges that in 2019, defendants Adams and Kinyon did nothing to help him
for his complaints of back pain and otherwise delayed offsite treatment. These claims run into
the same problem that I discussed in dismissing claims against another defendant earlier in the
case: the statute of limitations for Thompson’s Eighth Amendment claims is three years.
Wis. Stat. § 893.53; see also Dkt. 143 (granting defendant Gavin’s motion to dismiss on statute-
of-limitations grounds). Because Thompson filed his original complaint in this case in June
2023, his claims against Adams and Kinyon are barred by the statute of limitations. So I will
grant summary judgment to the state defendants on those claims.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 11 of 20

12
B. Defendant Murphy
Thompson alleges that defendant Dr. Murphy changed his referral for surgery to a
referral for a pain injection instead, even though he knew that Thompson was urinating and
defecating on himself, symptoms that needed medical intervention beyond a pain injection.
Thompson’s claim is almost entirely premised on a July 15, 2022 offsite treatment note
by Dr. Choi stating, “The patient was originally scheduled for neurosurgery, but somehow
something had changed and the patient was referred for an injection.” Dkt. 159-9. Choi’s
concern about Thompson’s worsening symptoms led him to order an emergency MRI, which
in turn led to Thompson receiving microdiscectomy surgery the next day.
Thompson 	takes 	Choi’s 	note 	to 	mean 	that 	defendant 	Murphy 	converted 	his
neurosurgery consult to a pain-injection appointment instead. But there is no evidence
suggesting that Murphy did so. When Thompson began seeing Murphy about nine months
prior, Thompson already had a neurosurgery consultation for his back pain scheduled. That
consult was scheduled for January 2022, but it had to be rescheduled because Thompson had
a bacterial infection. Murphy wasn’t responsible for scheduling such consults. Murphy also
referred Thompson to the pain clinic for a possible steroid injection.
By June 2022, when Thompson’s symptoms were getting worse, Murphy responded by
making another referral to neurosurgery in late June 2022. The medical records also show that
support staff attempted to follow-up with UW neurosurgery several days later. In early July,
Murphy met again with Thompson; his notes state that the neurosurgery appointment was a
“high priority” because of Thompson’s worsening symptoms.
So when Thompson was seen by Dr. Choi offsite in July 2022 for a steroid injection,
he had outstanding referrals by Murphy for both an injection and a neurosurgery consult. And
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 12 of 20

13
Murphy wasn’t responsible for the logistics of scheduling referrals. Dr. Choi’s note that
“somehow something had changed” at most suggests that there was confusion in scheduling
the various referrals that Murphy had made. There is no evidence that Murphy canceled a
neurosurgery consult or converted it to an injection appointment instead. Thompson’s mere
speculation that Murphy interfered with his needed treatment is not enough to create a genuine
dispute of material fact. See, e.g., Herzog v. Graphic Packaging Int’l, Inc., 742 F.3d 802, 806 (7th
Cir. 2014) (While nonmovant “is entitled . . . to all reasonable inferences in her favor,
inferences that are supported by only speculation or conjecture will not defeat a summary
judgment motion.” (citation omitted)). So I will grant summary judgment to defendant
Murphy on this claim.
C. Defendant Alt
Thompson brings two Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Nurse Alt. The first
is about a health service request that Thompson submitted in late June 2022, shortly before
his surgery. Thompson stated that he had numbness in his buttock down into his right leg,
knee, and foot. He also complained of pain during bowel movements. Alt responded by
referring Thompson to an advanced care provider; Dr. Murphy saw Thompson about a week
later and increased his tramadol dosage.
Thompson argues that Alt should have done more to treat his pain than merely arrange
for him to be seen by an advanced care provider. But in considering medical care claims, I must
consider the totality of care that Thompson received, not just pick apart individual decisions.
Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722, 728 (7th Cir. 2016). Prisoners are not entitled to the treatment
of their choice. Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954, 964 (7th Cir. 2019). And
as a nurse, Alt was limited in the treatment that she could directly provide. Thompson had
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 13 of 20

14
already been seen by defendant Dr. Murphy three times that month, including three days
before Thompson’s health service request to Alt. Over the course of that month, Murphy had
made several orders to treat Thompson’s worsening pain, including orders for over-the-counter
medication, a Toradol injection, a course of corticosteroids, an increased dosage of tramadol, a
bed wedge, a wheelchair, and a referral to neurosurgery. Alt didn’t have the authority to order
anything stronger for Thompson than he had already been receiving for pain; it didn’t show
conscious disregard for her to refer Thompson back to an advanced care provider to again
address his concerns. I will grant summary judgment to the state defendants on this claim.
Thompson’s second claim against Alt concerns a health service request that Thompson
submitted in early September 2022 about his back, leg, and foot pain following his surgery. Alt
responded that he had a surgical follow-up soon. Thompson indeed had a post-surgical
appointment offsite four days later. I agree with the state defendants that this response couldn’t
lead a reasonable jury to conclude that Alt consciously disregarded his condition. Pain following
surgery is a common occurrence. Alt couldn’t prescribe Thompson stronger medication, nor
was there reason to schedule a new appointment with an advanced care provider given his
upcoming appointment with his surgical provider. In addition, Alt responded to another health
service request that Thompson submitted the same day (inquiring about his wedge pillow used
to help with his acid reflux) by checking prison records for that order seeing that the pillow
had been removed in error, and fixing the problem by reinstating the order. This shows that
Alt responded to Thompson’s requests by taking action that she had the authority for. It wasn’t
conscious disregard for her to decline actions she didn’t have the authority to perform. I will
grant summary judgment to the state defendants on this claim.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 14 of 20

15
D. Defendant Sukowaty
Thompson alleges that defendant Dr. Sukowaty canceled various offsite appointments
and told him she would not treat him while he was in solitary confinement. In his complaint,
Thompson alleged that Sukowaty disregarded his medical needs by canceling appointments for
“podiatry; ortho; and an EMG.” Dkt. 1, at 15. When I screened the complaint, I took “ortho”
to mean orthopedics. Dkt. 12, at 8. But the parties’ summary judgment materials make clear
that what Thompson meant was an orthotics appointment.
The only evidence in the record of an orthotic-related cancellation was Sukowaty’s
cancelation of an order for a heel lift that Sukowaty says had been entered in error. Thompson
argues that this shows that Sukowaty didn’t adequately care for his foot pain. But the medical
records show that defendant Acker entered the orthotic order based on a verbal order from
Sukowaty in late December 2022 after Thompson complained that his lift wasn’t fitting
correctly. The record also shows Sukowaty ordering Thompson a new lift in January 2023.
Sukowaty ordering a new lift or other orthotic doesn’t suggest conscious disregard.
The record is unclear as to why Sukowaty later rescinded that order in late March 2023
as made in error. But the prison physical therapist gave Thompson a new lift about a week
before Sukowaty canceled the order, so whatever reason Sukowaty had for rescinding his order,
there’s no evidence suggesting that Thompson was harmed by that action. See Lord v. Beahm,
952 F.3d 902, 904–05 (7th Cir. 2020) (to succeed on Eighth Amendment claim, plaintiff must
show that he was harmed by defendant’s actions or inactions). Thompson suggests that
Sukowaty delayed providing the lift, but there’s nothing in the record suggesting that Sukowaty
was responsible for arranging delivery of a medical device once it was ordered. So I will grant
summary judgment to the state defendants on this claim.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 15 of 20

16
Thompson alleges that Sukowaty canceled a podiatry appointment, but at summary
judgment, Thompson doesn’t provide any evidence supporting this allegation; none of the
medical records cited by the parties in their summary judgment show such a cancellation. So I
will grant the state defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this claim.
As for the cancellation of an EMG, it is undisputed that in August 2022, Sukowaty
canceled a neurology appointment scheduled for that December that would have evaluated the
tingling and numbness in Thompson’s leg; Sukowaty states that she “believe[s]” that an EMG
would have been included in that assessment. Dkt. 148, ¶ 122. I will infer that an EMG would
have been included. But Sukowaty’s reason for canceling that appointment was that in the
interim, Thompson had emergency microdiscectomy surgery and he had received what
Sukowaty believed was a definitive diagnosis for his condition. Thus, an appointment to
diagnose his condition was no longer necessary. I take Thompson to argue that the surgery did
not completely resolve his problems and that the failure to get further diagnostic testing led to
the recurrence of a herniation at the surgical site. But the only reasonable inference from these
facts is that Sukowaty exercised her medical judgment in deciding to cancel the neurology
appointment as unnecessary in light of the intervening surgical procedure. Because Sukowaty
used her medical judgment, Thompson can’t win this Eighth Amendment claim against her.
Whether Sukowaty’s decision was wise might be a medical malpractice question, but
Thompson doesn’t bring any malpractice claims in this case. I will grant the state defendants’
motion for summary judgment on this claim.
That leaves Thompson’s claim that Sukowaty told him that she would not treat him
while he was in segregation. The parties are unclear about precisely when Sukowaty made this
statement or when Thompson was in segregation, but he was in segregation at least for a period
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 16 of 20

17
starting in mid-September 2022 and another from around mid-December 2022 to early
January 2023. Thompson says that Sukowaty made this statement in front of defendant Acker.
Both Sukowaty and Acker deny Sukowaty saying this, and they suggest that Thompson is
confusing such a statement with a discussion that Thompson and Acker had (without
Sukowaty present) in late December 2022 regarding Thompson’s request for a cuff-in-front
restriction. But because the state defendants move for summary judgment I must credit
Thompson’s version of the facts and assume that Sukowaty did tell Thompson that she
wouldn’t treat him.
Nonetheless, Sukowaty’s statement alone doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment.
Cf. DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 612 (2000) (generally, verbal harassment does not violate
Constitution). In his complaint, Thompson bolstered this allegation with his allegations that
Sukowaty canceled various appointments. But as discussed above, there isn’t any evidence
suggesting that Thompson was harmed by any of these events, nor were these cancellations
connected to Thompson’s periods of segregation.
The record otherwise shows that Sukowaty indeed continued to treat Thompson while
he was in segregation. Sukowaty saw Thompson in mid-September 2022 at the beginning of
his fluid strike, responding to his complaints of chest pain. She saw him at the end of
September for a follow-up regarding his back pain. In mid-December she responded to an
episode of acute pain by ordering him a Toradol shot. And in early January she saw Thompson
for complaints of a frozen shoulder; she advised that he use a sling, and she ordered naproxen
for him. Other than Sukowaty’s alleged statement to him, Thompson doesn’t provide any
evidence showing that Sukowaty neglected him during his stints in segregation. So I will grant
summary judgment to the state defendants on this claim.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 17 of 20

18
E. Defendants Valerius, Utter, and Acker
Thompson alleges that after his surgery, an outside podiatrist recommended that
Thompson use a lift in his left shoe and obtain non-institution athletic shoes, but defendants
Nurse Valerius, health services manager Utter, and assistant manager Acker did not follow
these recommendations.
I will grant the state defendants summary judgment on Thompson’s claims about a lift
for his left shoe. The medical records indicate that Thompson had been given a lift before the
events in question, and there is no evidence suggesting that he complained to these defendants
or any other medical staff about needing a new one during the times relevant to these claims.
That leaves Thompson’s claims about being denied New Balance shoes recommended
by a podiatrist in July 2022. The only one of these three defendants on that committee was
defendant Acker. The committee denied Thompson’s request because the podiatrist hadn’t
explained why the certain shoe that he had recommended was medically necessary, particularly
given the committee’s previous approval of other medical shoes for Thompson. The Eighth
Amendment does not entitle Thompson to demand specific care, Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262,
267 (7th Cir. 1997), and it certainly does not entitle him to shoes from a particular vendor.
Without a more specific rationale from the doctor about why these particular shoes were
necessary, a reasonable jury could not conclude that Acker and the committee consciously
disregarded Thompson’s medical needs. Thompson says that the podiatrist was clear that the
New Balance shoes were medically necessary, but in doing so he refers to records from a 2024
appointment with the podiatrist, Dkt. 178-4, which isn’t the record from the relevant time
frame. And in any event the 2024 recommendation from the podiatrist stated that Thompson
could wear “a supportive shoe such as the Orthofeet or a new balance like stiff-soled athletic
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 18 of 20

19
shoe.” Id. So even had the podiatrist included this information in his July 2022 instructions,
that wouldn’t have suggested that the New Balance shoes were a better option than Orthofeet
shoes that the Special Needs Committee had already approved. I will grant summary judgment
to the state defendants on this claim.
After the Special Needs Committee denied Thompson’s request, defendant Valerius
fielded a health service request about the denial and defendant Utter assisted in the response
to a grievance. But a health service request wasn’t the proper way to complain about the Special
Needs Committee’s denial of the shoes, and there’s no evidence suggesting that Nurse Valerius
could do anything about that request, so Thompson cannot maintain an Eighth Amendment
claim against her. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Bureaucracies
divide tasks; no prisoner is entitled to insist that one employee do another’s job. . . .”).
Defendant Health Services Manager Utter couldn’t unilaterally overrule the Special
Needs Committee’s denial of the shoes either. Perhaps had Thompson clearly explained why
he thought the Special Needs Committee had incorrectly denied him shoes, Utter could have
recommended a different outcome to the complaint examiner. But based on Utter’s response
to the examiner, it is clear that Utter didn’t squarely address the committee’s decision.
Thompson’s reference to the date of incident as September 1, 2022, led Utter to review records
of Thompson’s September 1 appointment with defendant Dr. Sukowaty, which said nothing
about the shoe request. She otherwise noted that Thompson was approved for medical shoes,
just not the kind that he mentioned in his grievance. The record indicates that Utter
misunderstood 	which 	denial 	of 	shoes 	Thompson 	was 	complaining 	about. 	But 	that
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 19 of 20

20
misunderstanding isn’t enough to show that she consciously disregarded his medical problem.
So I will grant summary judgment to the state defendants on this claim. 3
Because I am granting in full both sets of defendants’ motions for summary judgment,
the entire case will be dismissed.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Quenton Thompson’s motion to compel discovery, Dkt. 144, is DENIED
as moot.
2. 	Plaintiff’s renewed motion for recruitment of counsel, Dkt. 195, is DENIED.
3. 	Defendants’ 	motions 	for 	summary 	judgment, 	Dkt. 	132 	and 	Dkt. 	146, 	are
GRANTED.
4. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
Entered March 26, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
3 The state defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Because I am
dismissing Thompson’s claims on the merits, I need not consider the state defendants’ qualified
immunity arguments.
Case: 3:23-cv-00381-jdp Document #: 196 Filed: 03/26/26 Page 20 of 20