Antonio Parker v. CHRISTINE HOLMEN and LORETTA JOHNSON

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 24, 2025*
Decided July 24, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2750
ANTONIO PARKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHRISTINE HOLMEN and LORETTA
JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 21-cv-509-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Antonio Parker, a Wisconsin prisoner, mistakenly received a medicine intended
for another prisoner. He sued prison nurses under the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution, asserting that they failed to properly evaluate and treat him after they
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-2750 Page 2
discovered the mistake. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court found no evidence of
deliberate indifference and entered summary judgment for the nurses. We affirm.
We recount the facts in the light most favorable to Parker, the nonmoving party.
See Hackett v. City of South Bend, 956 F.3d 504, 506 (7th Cir. 2020). In 2021, a correctional
officer at Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage, Wisconsin, mistakenly gave
Parker a medicine intended for another prisoner, and Parker took the medication
thinking it was his. The officer realized his mix-up and reported it to a sergeant. Parker
maintains that he was given three prescription medications—trazodone, an
antidepressant; montelukast, an anti-asthmatic drug; and fluconazole, an antifungal.
But the officer reported to the sergeant that he gave Parker an antihistamine,
diphenhydramine (Benadryl). The sergeant called a nurse, Loretta Johnson, who said
that Benadryl is an over-the-counter medication, so any reaction would be mild. She
asked the sergeant to monitor Parker for any change in his condition. Parker told
another nurse, Christine Holmen, that he had taken the wrong medication and asked
her to pull him out of his cell for an evaluation. He conceded he was not experiencing
any symptoms at the time. Parker says that Holmen laughed and told him that he
would be alright.
Later that night, Parker developed symptoms including stomach pain, diarrhea,
and dizziness. At some point, he lost consciousness and hit his head on a concrete slab.
No one saw the fall. Parker asked an officer to call medical staff, but Parker says the
officer refused.
Several days later, Parker—in response to health-services requests he filed asking
to be seen by medical staff—received a response saying that he would be scheduled to
be seen by a nurse. He filed a grievance stating that he should have been seen as soon as
the nurses learned of the mistake. The institution’s complaint examiner affirmed the
grievance, agreeing that Parker should have been evaluated right away.
Parker sued Holmen, Johnson, and other correctional staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
for acting with deliberate indifference to his health needs, in violation of his rights
under the Eighth Amendment. He highlighted the defendants’ refusal to fully evaluate
him after learning that he took the wrong medication.
The district court later granted the correctional staff’s motion for summary
judgment based on Parker’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. This left
Parker’s claims against only Holmen and Johnson.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-2750 Page 3
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted
the defendants’ motion and denied Parker’s. The court determined that there was
insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Holmen and
Johnson acted with deliberate indifference. The court saw no evidence that Holmen had
been told what medication Parker had taken or that Parker was exhibiting any
symptoms. Nor was there evidence that Johnson knowingly ignored any substantial
risk of harm, having recommended only that Parker continue to be monitored for
ingesting diphenhydramine—a medication with limited side effects.
On appeal, Parker challenges the district court’s determination that there was no
evidence that the nurses acted with deliberate indifference. He points to the prison’s
response to his grievance, acknowledging that the medication mix-up should have
prompted an evaluation by medical staff. This response, he contends, shows that the
nurses must have understood the serious risk posed by his ingesting the wrong
medication.
But to establish deliberate indifference, Parker must show that the nurses knew
of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm because of the mistake. Farmer v. Brennan,
511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994). With regard to Johnson, the undisputed evidence shows that
she believed that Parker was given an over-the-counter allergy medication and that any
reaction would be mild. As for Holmen, the record reflects that she did not know what
medication Parker received, and she did not see him exhibit any symptoms (and he
concedes he was not experiencing any at the time). Nothing on the record shows, then,
that Holmen was aware of facts from which she could—and did—infer that Parker was
at a substantial risk of serious harm. See id. Relatedly, to the extent Parker challenges the
court’s determination that the nurses did not act with deliberate indifference when they
failed to evaluate him after he slipped and hit his head, he points to no evidence that
either nurse was aware that the injury occurred.
Parker also challenges the denial of his requests for counsel. Parker moved for
the recruitment of counsel to assist him with his case five times over the course of the
proceedings. He contends that the court did not consider the complexity of the case and
overstated his ability to represent himself. But the court appropriately exercised its
discretion to deny the motions. Parker made three requests at inopportune times: one
was filed too early in the litigation, a second sought assistance at a mediation that had
not been requested, and a third came after summary judgment had been entered. The
court also acted well within its discretion to deny the remaining two motions based on
its belief that Parker could understand its orders, comply with deadlines, seek

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-2750 Page 4
extensions, and conduct discovery. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir. 2007)
(en banc). At any rate, Parker—having not presented evidence showing that the nurses
acted with deliberate indifference—has not shown a reasonable likelihood that counsel
would have made a difference in the outcome of the litigation. Id. at 659.
We have considered Parker’s remaining arguments and none merits discussion.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --