Smith v. Gerst et al

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THOMAS M. SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
P.A. GERST,
C/O BRUBAKER, and
WARDEN CROW,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-00249-SPM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MCGLYNN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Thomas Smith, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) who
is currently incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center (Big Muddy), brings this civil
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his constitutional rights. Along with his
Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Injunction, which is now before the Court. (Doc. 2). For the following reasons, the Motion is
DENIED.
ALLEGATIONS IN THE C OMPLAINT
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following: On January 14, 2026, while moving his
property box, Plaintiff caught his thumb between the bunk bed and the box, “snapping [his]
thumb.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). His thumb immediately began to swell, and the tip turned purple. Plaintiff
felt a tingling sensation consistent with the feeling of losing circulation. His thumb was visibly
dislocated and not in its proper placement. Plaintiff notified Correctional Officer Brubaker, the
wing officer, and asked to be sent to “medical.” Brubaker told Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be fine
Case 3:26-cv-00249-SPM Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 6
and did not call medical staff or attempt to obtain medical attention for Plaintiff’s injury. (Id.).
For the next two days, Plaintiff continued to show the “medline” nurse his injury, but the
nurse did not even bother to look at his thumb and told Plaintiff to submit a “sick call” request.
(Doc. 1, p. 3). On January 15, 2026, Plaintiff requested to be seen at sick call. (Id. at p. 4).
On January 17, 2026, Correctional Officers Casey and Dean called the health care
department about Plaintiff’s injury, and Plaintiff was seen by a nurse. (Doc. 1, p. 4). The nurse
told Plaintiff that without an x-ray she could not tell if his thumb was broken. She gave Plaintiff
ibuprofen and Tylenol, but the medicine did not help his pain. (Id.).
On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff had an appointment with Physician Assistant Gerst. (Doc.
1, p. 4). During the appointment, Gerst was rude, and his back was to Plaintiff for “90% of the
appointment.” (Id. at p. 5). Gerst grabbed Plaintiff’s thumb and tried to bend the thumb too far.
Plaintiff jerked and cried out in pain, but Gerst told him to “stop acting like a fool.” Gerst ordered
x-rays and gave Plaintiff ibuprofen, but Gerst did not splint the thumb. X-rays of Plaintiff’s thumb
were taken on January 26, 2026. The following day, Plaintiff requested sick call because of the
pain and an ongoing tingling sensation in the tip of his thumb. Plaintiff was seen at sick call on
January 29, 2026, and only given more ibuprofen, even though it was not effective at treating his
pain. (Id.).
Plaintiff requested another sick call appointment on February 10, 2026. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
Plaintiff was seen on February 12, 2026, and he told the nurse that he had not been seen by the
doctor about his x-ray results. The nurse was surprised and made a note to have Plaintiff seen by
a doctor. (Id.). Plaintiff submitted a sick call request on February 17, 2026, because of his pain,
loss of feeling, and limited range of motion. (Id. at p. 6). Plaintiff was seen at sick call on February
23, 2026. (Id.).
Plaintiff had an appointment with Gerst on February 27, 2026, to review the x-ray results.
Case 3:26-cv-00249-SPM Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 6
(Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff explained to Gerst his ongoing symptoms, specifically a “pins and needles”
sensation in the tip of his thumb, pain in the knuckle closest to the thumbnail, and limited range of
motion. Gerst explained that the x-ray results were normal and did not order further testing, despite
the obvious deformity of Plaintiff’s thumb, ongoing pain, and tingling sensation. Gerst told
Plaintiff that if his thumb was not better in a month or two then Gerst could order physical therapy.
Gerst remarked that ordering physical therapy “would be pointless since the physical therapist is
about eight months behind schedule.” (Id.).
MOTION FOR T EMPORARY RESTRAINING O RDER AND / OR PRELIMINARY I NJUNCTION
Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary
injunction directing that he be seen by an orthopedic doctor to be properly diagnosed and treated
and that he be prescribed proper pain medication. (Doc. 2). He states that he will likely suffer long-
term permanent damage unless the Court issues an injunction. (Id. at p. 3).
To obtain emergency injunctive relief, whether through a TRO or preliminary injunction,
Plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) his underlying case has some likelihood of success; (2) no
adequate remedy at law exists; and (3) he will suffer irreparable harm without the relief. Merritte
v. Kessel, 561 F. App’x 546, 548 (7th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). All three requirements must
be satisfied before the Court can consider whether preliminary injunctive relief is warranted.
Plaintiff has not met this high burden. Notably, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to
succeed on the merits of his Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Defendants,
and so, his motion must be denied.
In order to prevail on a claim of deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must show that his
condition was “objectively, sufficiently serious” and that the “prison officials acted with a
sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 652-53 (7th Cir. 2005)
(citations and quotation marks omitted). Assuming that the injury to Plaintiff’s thumb and
Case 3:26-cv-00249-SPM Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 6
associated pain amount to an objectively serious medical condition, Plaintiff has not presented
evidence to substantiate his claim that Defendants were aware of and consciously disregarded his
serious medical needs. While Plaintiff is not required to “show that [he] definitely will win the
case…a mere possibility of success is not enough,” and he must make “[a] strong showing that
[he] is likely to succeed on the merits.” Ill. Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 763 (7th
Cir. 2020). A “strong showing” includes a “demonstration of how the applicant proposes to prove
the key elements of its case.” Id. at 763 (quotation marks omitted). Relying on his allegations in
the Complaint is not sufficient. In assessing whether a request for emergency injunctive relief has
adequately demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, the Court does not
simply “accept [Plaintiff’s] allegations as true, nor do[es] [it] give him the benefit of all reasonable
inferences in his favor.” Doe v. Univ. of S. Indiana, 43 F.4th 784, 791 (7th Cir. 2022). Instead, the
Court must assess the merits as “they are likely to be decided after more complete discovery and
litigation.” Id.
As to Physician Assistant Gerst, to the extent that Plaintiff has adequately pled an Eighth
Amendment deliberate indifference claim, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that Gerst
consciously disregarded a risk to Plaintiff’s health in rendering his treatment decisions. Because
Gerst is a medical provider, “a prisoner must demonstrate that the medical professional’s response
was so inadequate that it demonstrated an absence of professional judgment.” Stewart v. Wexford
Health Sources, Inc., 14 F.4th 757, 763 (7th Cir. 2021) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
At this point, all Plaintiff has shown is a disagreement with his care. See Proctor v. Sood, 863 F.3d
563, 568 (7th Cir. 2017). He claims that Gerst did not splint his thumb during the appointment on
January 20 and that Gerst did not address his pain or “pins and needles” sensation in his thumb
during the February 27 appointment. Instead, Gerst advised that he could prescribe physical
therapy if Plaintiff’s thumb does not improve in a month and informed Plaintiff that there is a long
Case 3:26-cv-00249-SPM Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 6
wait for physical therapy. Plaintiff believes that Gerst should have ordered further diagnostic
testing. (Doc. 2, p. 2). There is nothing in the record, however, indicating how Plaintiff plans to
demonstrate that Gerst’s decision to allow Plaintiff’s thumb to heal on its own, based on “normal”
x-ray results, departed from accepted medical judgment, practice, or standards. Furthermore,
Plaintiff filed his motion for preliminary injunction five days after his appointment with Gerst, and
it does not appear that Gerst is aware that Plaintiff requires additional medical treatment.
Accordingly, it is not clear how Plaintiff plans to demonstrate deliberate indifference on the part
of Gerst, a key element of the case, and therefore, he has not met the burden of showing that he
has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits.
As to Defendant Warden Crow and Correctional Officer Brubaker, Plaintiff does not state
a viable Eighth Amendment claim. Plaintiff does not assert any allegations against Crow in his
statement of facts, so the Court is unable to ascertain what claims, if any, Plaintiff has against
Crow. Crow cannot be held liable simply because she is in a supervisory position, and merely
listing the name of a potential defendant is not sufficient to state a claim against that individual.
See Collins v. Kibort, 143 F.3d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1998) (“A plaintiff cannot state a claim against
a defendant by including the defendant’s name in the caption.”); Horshaw v. Casper, 910 F.3d
1027, 1029 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Liability under § 1983 is direct rather than vicarious; supervisors are
responsible for their own acts but not for those of subordinates, or for failing to ensure that
subordinates carry out their tasks correctly.”).
As for Brubaker, Plaintiff only interacted with Brubaker one time on January 14, 2026,
immediately after he injured his thumb. He claims Brubaker ignored his request for medical
attention. This single isolated incident does not amount to a constitutional violation, as single
instances of neglect are generally insufficient to support a claim of Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference. See Owens v. Duncan, 788 F. App’x 371, 374 (7th Cir. 2019) (a single interaction
Case 3:26-cv-00249-SPM Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 6
with staff at sick call did not amount to deliberate indifference); Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d
1364, 1374 (7th Cir. 1997) (“isolated instances of neglect … cannot support a finding of deliberate
indifference”). Based on the facts in the Complaint, Plaintiff has not sufficiently pled a
constitutional claim against Crown and Brubaker and so there is no way Plaintiff could meet his
burden of showing that he has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of any claim against them.
The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to suffer irreparable
injury without the Court’s involvement. He states in the Motion for a TRO and/or Preliminary
Injunction that in the last two weeks he has requested sick call twice and received no response.
(Doc. 2, p. 2). According to the Complaint, however, he continues to be seen by medical staff for
his injury. He submitted a sick call request on January 15 and was seen on January 17; he submitted
a sick call request on January 27 and was seen on January 29; he submitted a sick call request on
February 10 and was seen on February 12; and he submitted a sick call request on February 17 and
was seen on February 23. In between these appointments at sick call, he was treated by Gerst on
January 20 and February 27, and x-rays were taken on February 26. Based on these facts, Plaintiff
has not made a clear showing that immediate and irreparable injury will result without an
emergency injunction. Although he is dissatisfied with his care at Big Muddy and continues to
experience pain and a tingling sensation in his thumb, there is no evidence that he is being denied
medical treatment. Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the treatment decisions does not show likely
harm. For these reasons, the Court will not grant Plaintiff a TRO or preliminary injunction. (Doc.
2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 11, 2026
s/Stephen P. McGlynn
STEPHEN P. MCGLYNN
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00249-SPM Document 5 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>