Podkulski v. Williams

2 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Vanihel

    2:21-cv-00421-JPH-MJD (S.D. Ind. Nov. 7, 2024)

    A court may find as a matter of law that a medical provider reasonably determined that a prisoner did not have a serious mental health issue after that provider provides a detailed mental health exam in response to a plaintiff's complaints. See Podkulski v. Williams, No. 15-CV-11870, 2022 WL 991963, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2022). But here, Mr. Walker has identified incidents where he complained of suicidality, received no timely assessment, and then shortly thereafter harmed himself.

  2. Minnifield v. Gomez

    21-cv-4982 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 1, 2024)

    A request for a crisis team, standing alone, isn't enough to put a correctional officer on notice of a substantial, imminent risk. See, e.g., Collins v. Seeman, 462 F.3d 757, 761 (7th Cir. 2006) (concluding that a request to see a crisis counselor was insufficient to show that the inmate was at substantial risk of committing suicide); Johnson v. Garant, 786 Fed.Appx. 609, 610 (7th Cir. 2019) (“[A] reasonable jury could not find that the defendants knew of a substantial risk of suicide based only on [the plaintiff's] statements that he felt suicidal and wanted to speak to a crisis counselor.”); Lyons v. Wills, 2024 WL 1285436, at *4 (S.D. Ill. 2024) (denying an inmate access to a crisis team member does not indicate awareness of a substantial risk of harm); Podkulski v. Williams, 2022 WL 991963, at *6 (N.D. Ill. 2022) (opining that a corrections officer can decline to provide a crisis team when an inmate expresses suicidal thoughts without being deliberately indifferent).