« Ind. Courts - More on "Lawmakers to debate illegal entry controversy" | Main | Ind. Gov't. - Breaking News: Buss out as Florida Corrections Head »

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit issues two Indiana opinions today

In US v. Snow (SD Ind., McKinney), a 15-page opinion, Judge Rovner writes:

A gun was discovered on Ernest R. Snow’s person after he was pulled over on suspicion of a burglary attempt and ordered out of his vehicle for a protective patdown. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1883 (1968). As Snow had prior felony convictions, he was indicted pursuant to the felon-in-possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and ultimately pleaded guilty to that charge. Snow contends, however, that his motion to suppress evidence related to the gun should have been granted, because the police officers who stopped him lacked any reasonable grounds on which to believe that he might be armed and that the order to exit his vehicle for purposes of a protective frisk was therefore invalid. We disagree and affirm.
In Ortiz v. Webster (SD Ind., McKinney), an 18-page, 2-1 opinion, Judge Bauer writes:
Both the dispute about the need for surgery and Dr. Webster’s own failure to resolve the issue through the further evaluation that he himself considered necessary were evident in the record before we remanded the case. * * * Because we previously identified a fact dispute over whether the extended delay in Ortiz’s treatment amounted to deliberate indifference and because Dr. Maturi’s opinion fails to resolve that dispute, we remand for trial. * * *

KANNE, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I agree with the majority’s opinion insofar as it forecloses Ortiz’s claim that there was a policy which forbade medical trips for all death-row inmates. There is no evidence of such a policy, and the majority rightly rejects this argument. I also agree that Ortiz has demonstrated that the pterygia in one of his eyes qualified as a serious medical condition. I part company with the majority, however, as to its conclusions regarding Dr. Webster’s state of mind. I do not believe that the facts of this case give rise to any possibility of deliberate indifference on the part of Dr. Webster during the time period of the complaint, and would therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in Dr. Webster’s favor.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 24, 2011 07:18 PM
Posted to Ind. (7th Cir.) Decisions