Ward v. Hirachan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Tyrone Franklin Ward, Jr., 	Case No. 25-cv-4319 (JWB/DTS)
Plaintiff,
v. 	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Dr. Soniya Hirachan, et al.,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Plaintiff Tyrone Franklin Ward Jr., a civil detainee at the Forensic Mental
Health Program, sues three medical providers: Defendants Dr. Soniya Hirachan, MaLinda
Henderson, and Rebecca Kennedy. The Court construes Ward’s Amended Complaint as
bringing a claim of deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. For the reasons
stated below, the Court recommends Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.
FACTS1
Ward, a civil detainee in his 30s, is morbidly obese and suffers from Type II
diabetes along with several other health conditions. Dkt. No. 5 at 99.2 As of June 2020,
he had “gained a significant amount of weight over the past year,” had a very sedentary
1 The facts are drawn from the operative Amended Complaint and accepted as true.
Gorog v. Best Buy Co., 760 F.3d 787, 792 (8th Cir. 2014). That includes the medical
records attached to the Amended Complaint as exhibits. See Dkt. No. 5. Ward’s
numerous subsequent filings, see Dkt. Nos. 21, 23–25, 29, 30–34, are not a part of the
Amended Complaint. Mack v. Equifax Info. Servs. LLC, No. 20-cv-557, 2020 WL
3052091, at *3 (D. Minn. May 11, 2020), R. & R. adopted by No. 2020 WL 3048017
(D. Minn. June 8, 2020) (declining to consider additional facts included in a response
brief).
2 Page citations are to a document’s CM/ECF pagination appearing in the upper right
corner, not to a document’s original pagination.
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 7

2
lifestyle, and reported “snacking like crazy” despite extensive education from nursing staff
about the importance of eating healthy and regular exercise. Id. Nurse Henderson
prescribed Ozempic to control his diabetes and reduce his weight. Id. at 100. Between
June 2020 and December 2022, he intermittently reported stomach pain and nausea.
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 5 at 42–44, 86, 97. In May 2023 Ward was sent to the emergency
room after substantial swelling in his lower extremities. Id. at 26. There, Ward was
diagnosed with gallstones and biliary colic. Id.3 On July 17, 2023, Ward underwent a
laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Id. at 1.4
Ward filed the operative Amended Complaint on December 8, 2025. Am. Compl.,
Dkt. No. 4. Although Ward fails to identify specific legal claims, the Amended Complaint
states it is a “complaint for violation of civil [r]ights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Id. at 1. Ward
alleges that Ozempic caused his gallstones and that medical providers at his facility failed
to adequately respond to his medical issues. Compl. at 4 (listing 30 facts, including “Being
refused medical attention”; “Not getting proper treatment for my illness”; and “Not being
able to prove my sickness because the doctors and nurses don’t care”). The Court thus
interprets Ward as bringing a deliberate indifference claim against the three named
defendants.
3 A gallstone is “[a] concretion in the gallbladder, or a bile duct, composed chiefly of a
mixture 	of 	cholesterol, 	calcium 	bilirubinate, 	and 	calcium 	carbonate[.]” 	Gallstone,
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 724 (27th ed. 2000).
Biliary colic refers “intense spasmodic pain felt in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen
from impaction of a gallstone in the cystic duct.” Biliary Colic, Stedman’s Medical
Dictionary 378 (27th ed. 2000).
4 A cholecystectomy is the “[s]urgical removal of the gallbladder.” Cholecystectomy,
Stedman’s Medical Dictionary 337 (27th ed. 2000).
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 7

3
ANALYSIS
I. 	Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to plead sufficient
facts, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A complaint must provide more than “‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of
the 	elements 	of 	a 	cause 	of 	action.’” 	Iqbal, 	556 	U.S. 	at 	678 	(quoting 	Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). Although a pro se complaint is liberally construed, it must still contain
specific facts sufficient to support its legal conclusions. See Kaylor v. Fields, 661 F.2d
1177, 1183 (8th Cir. 1981). Thus, while a court accords deference to pro se pleadings, it
will not assume facts that might support the plaintiff’s claim that the pro se plaintiff does
not allege. Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 915 (8th Cir. 2004).
II. 	Deliberate Indifference
Defendants move to dismiss Ward’s deliberate indifference claim for failure to state
a claim. The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const.
amend. VIII. The Supreme Court has found that prison officials violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment when they are deliberately
indifferent to a prisoner’s serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104
(1976). To state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment, a
plaintiff must plausibly allege “(1) an objectively serious medical need; and (2) the
defendants actually knew of the medical need but were deliberately indifferent to it.”
East v. Minnehaha Cnty., 986 F.3d 816, 820 (8th Cir. 2021) (quoting Jones v. Minn. Dep’t.
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 7

4
of Corrs., 512 F.3d 478, 481 (8th Cir. 2008)). An objectively serious medical need “must
be either obvious to the layperson or supported by medical evidence, like a physician’s
diagnosis.” Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461, 464 (8th Cir. 1995). “Deliberate indifference
requires more than negligence and is ‘akin to criminal recklessness.’” Jenkins v. United
States, No. 23-cv-3253, 2024 WL 913342, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2024) (quoting Smith v.
United States, No. 13-3277, 2015 WL 278252, at *12 (D. Minn. Jan. 22, 2015)); see also
Minnehaha Cnty., 986 F.3d at 821.
A. 	Dr. Hirachan
The Amended Complaint lacks any factual allegations regarding Dr. Hirachan.
The same is true for the attached medical records. Without an explanation for who
Dr. Hirachan is and how she ignored Ward’s serious medical need, Ward fails to state a
plausible deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Hirachan. See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty.
Jail, 437 F.3d 791, 795 (8th Cir. 2006) (“Deliberate indifference requires a showing that
the medical provider knew of and disregarded a serious medical need.”); Kenyon v.
Dooley, 605 F. App’x 581, 582 (8th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (“[N]othing in the record shows
that any individual defendant was responsible for the alleged delays after surgery.”);
Jenkins v. United States, No. 23-cv-3253, 2024 WL 913342, at *4 (D. Minn. Mar. 4, 2024)
(“[Plaintiff] also needed to plead that specific Defendants knew about her condition
and deliberately disregarded her needs, which she failed to do.”); Schaub v. VonWald,
638 F.3d 905, 915 (8th Cir. 2011) (“Deliberate indifference must be measured by the
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 7

5
official’s knowledge at the time in question.”). Therefore, the Court recommends Ward’s
deliberate indifference claim against Dr. Hirachan be dismissed.
B. 	Nurse Practitioner Kennedy
The same follows for Ward’s deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Kennedy.
Nurse Kennedy is only mentioned once in the medical records attached to the Amended
Complaint; in February 2022 she entered a psychiatric progress note. See Dkt. No. 5 at
57. Ward does not articulate what objectively serious medical need Nurse Kennedy was
aware of but nonetheless deliberately disregarded. The Court recommends Ward’s
deliberate indifference claim against Nurse Kennedy be dismissed. See Supra, Part II.A.
C. 	Nurse Practitioner Henderson
Nurse Henderson was more involved in Ward’s care than Nurse Kennedy or
Dr. Hirachan. She (1) prescribed Ozempic to control Ward’s diabetes and morbid obesity
in August 2020, Dkt. No. 5 at 100; (2) monitored and treated Ward’s blood sugar levels,
id. at 55, 57, 60 (low blood sugar), 63 (high blood sugar); and (3) received reports of
abdominal pain and nausea in August 2020 and December 2022, id. at 44, 75. Even
accepting as true Ward’s relatively conclusory allegations that Ozempic caused adverse
side effects, the mere presence of side effects is not enough. See Givens v. Jones, 900
F.2d 1229, 1232–33 (8th Cir. 1990) (finding no deliberate indifference where a prisoner
suffered negative side effects from a prescribed medication). Nothing in the record
suggests Nurse Henderson knew prescribing Ozempic was a bad idea and prescribed it
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 7

6
anyway. To the contrary, the medical records demonstrate Nurse Henderson diligently
monitored and attempted to control Ward’s diabetes.
Ward’s reports of abdominal pain also do not suffice to state a deliberate
indifference claim. First, ward fails to plausibly allege that the pain was a serious medical
need. The Eighth Circuit case of Holden v. Hirner, where the court rejected a claim that
tooth pain was a serious medical need, is instructive. 663 F.3d 336 (8th Cir. 2011). The
Eighth Circuit reasoned, “there is no evidence Holden’s tooth pain was as severe or
obvious as in the cited cases. Nurse Porter evaluated Holden’s teeth and gums on
multiple occasions and never noted bleeding, swelling, infection or other visible symptoms
of tooth pain, nor did she determine Holden’s tooth pain required treatment.” Id. at 343.
Similar to Holden, when Ward reported pain in August 2020, for example, nursing staff
provided him with Tylenol and performed an examination, finding “no evidence of
symptoms that required intervention.” Dkt. No. 5 at 75.
Second, even if the Court assumes Ward’s pain was a serious medical need, Ward
fails to plausibly allege Nurse Henderson was deliberately indifferent to his pain. At most
she was negligent for not further crediting and investigating Ward’s subjective complaints,
complaints which were not supported by a medical examination and other medical staff
observations. Negligence is not enough. Ward must allege “more than negligence, more
even than gross negligence,” to plausibly allege a claim of deliberate indifference. Jolly v.
Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Estate of Rosenberg v.
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 7

7
Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 37 (8th Cir.1995)). The Court recommends Defendants’ motion to
dismiss be granted. 5
RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court RECOMMENDS that:
1. 	Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 14) be GRANTED; and
2. 	The Amended Complaint be DISMISSED.
Dated: April 30, 2026 	s/ David T. Schultz_______________
DAVID T. SCHULTZ
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
5 If Ward intended to bring state law claims, the Court would recommend those claims be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
CASE 0:25-cv-04319-JWB-DTS Doc. 35 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 7