Arnett v. Webster, No. 09-3280 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
When he arrived at the prison, plaintiff told the prison clinical director that he had rheumatoid arthritis and asked for Enbrel, a medication successful in controlling the condition before his incarceration. Because Enbrel was not on the approved formulary, personnel had to seek prior approval from the Central Office of the Bureau of Prisons. The doctor submitted a request for Gabapentin, used to treat nerve pain, but not Enbrel, and approved a consultation with an outside rheumatologist. Despite the rheumatologist’s instruction and plaintiff's repeated requests and complaints of pain and swelling, he didn’t receive Enbrel for 10 months. Because plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the district court screened his "Bivens" complaint alleging cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B), dismissed all defendants, except the clinical director, then entered summary judgment for the clinical director. The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the non-medical defendants on the pleadings, but held that the prisoner properly stated a claim against medical defendants. Affirming summary judgment in favor of of the clinical director, the court found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden to submit evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.