DeJuan Lowe v. Nancy B. Marthakis

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana
DecidedFebruary 23, 2026
Docket3:23-cv-00607
StatusUnknown

This text of DeJuan Lowe v. Nancy B. Marthakis (DeJuan Lowe v. Nancy B. Marthakis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
DeJuan Lowe v. Nancy B. Marthakis, (N.D. Ind. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION

DeJUAN LOWE,

Plaintiff,

v. CAUSE NO. 3:23-CV-607-CCB

NANCY B. MARTHAKIS,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER DeJuan Lowe, a prisoner without a lawyer, is proceeding in this case “against Dr. Nancy B. Marthakis in her individual capacity for compensatory and punitive damages for persisting in a course of ineffective treatment of Mr. Lowe’s gastritis and ulcerative colitis from 2013 through 2023 in violation of the Eighth Amendment[.]” ECF 9 at 5. Dr. Marthakis filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF 64. Lowe filed a response, and Dr. Marthakis filed a reply. ECF 76, 78, 81, 82. Dr. Marthakis’ summary judgment motion is now fully briefed and ripe for ruling. Summary judgment must be granted when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine issue of material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Not every dispute between the parties makes summary judgment inappropriate; “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Id. To determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party

and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Ogden v. Atterholt, 606 F.3d 355, 358 (7th Cir. 2010). However, a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rely merely on allegations or denials in its own pleading, but rather must “marshal and present the court with the evidence she contends will prove her case.” Goodman v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, Inc., 621 F.3d 651, 654 (7th Cir. 2010). “[I]nferences relying on mere speculation or conjecture will not suffice.” Trade Fin.

Partners, LLC v. AAR Corp., 573 F.3d 401, 407 (7th Cir. 2009). Under the Eighth Amendment, inmates are entitled to adequate medical care. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). To establish liability under the Eighth Amendment, a prisoner must show: (1) his medical need was objectively serious; and (2) the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to his medical need. Farmer v.

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). For a medical professional to be held liable for deliberate indifference to an inmate’s medical needs, she must make a decision that represents “such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards, as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” Jackson v. Kotter, 541 F.3d 688, 697 (7th Cir. 2008). As the

Seventh Circuit has explained: [M]edical professionals are not required to provide proper medical treatment to prisoners, but rather they must provide medical treatment that reflects professional judgment, practice, or standards. There is not one proper way to practice medicine in a prison, but rather a range of acceptable courses based on prevailing standards in the field. A medical professional’s treatment decisions will be accorded deference unless no minimally competent professional would have so responded under those circumstances. Id. at 697-698. Negligence, incompetence, or even medical malpractice do not amount to deliberate indifference. Pierson v. Hartley, 391 F.3d 898, 902 (7th Cir. 2004). Furthermore, a prisoner is not entitled to demand specific care, nor is he entitled to the “best care possible.” Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 267 (7th Cir. 1997). Where the defendant has provided some level of care for a prisoner’s medical condition, in order to establish deliberate indifference the prisoner must show that “the defendants’

responses to [his condition] were so plainly inappropriate as to permit the inference that the defendants intentionally or recklessly disregarded his needs.” Hayes v. Snyder, 546 F.3d 516, 524 (7th Cir. 2008). A mere disagreement with medical professionals about the appropriate treatment does not amount to an Eighth Amendment violation. Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 331 (7th Cir. 2003).

Dr. Marthakis provides Lowe’s medical records, her own affidavit, and information about ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease,1 which show the following facts: During all relevant times, Dr. Marthakis was the Medical Director at Indiana State Prison (“ISP”). ECF 66-2 at 1. All medical providers at ISP, including Dr. Marthakis, are required to obtain prior authorization for all off-site specialty services such as specialist consultations and procedures by submitting an offsite provider request (“OPR”) to a

designated reviewer. Id. at 2. Prior authorization is also required before a medical

1 As discussed below, Lowe’s medical providers originally diagnosed him with ulcerative colitis and later made findings consistent with Crohn’s disease. provider can order non-formulary medications by submitting a formulary exception request (“FER”). Id.

Ulcerative colitis (“UC”) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease in which the large intestine becomes inflamed and ulcerated, leading to flare-ups of bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever. ECF 66-3 at 1-2. UC treatment aims to control inflammation, reduce symptoms, and replace lost fluids and nutrients. Id. at 5. Aminosalicylates such as mesalamine (Lialda) and balsalazide (Colazal) are used to reduce inflammation and prevent flare-ups. Id. at 6. People with moderately severe UC

may also take corticosteroids like prednisone in fairly high doses, which can induce a dramatic remission. Id. Immunomodulating medications like azathioprine (Imuran) are used to maintain remission in individuals with UC who would otherwise need long- term corticosteroid treatment. Id. at 7. Additionally, monoclonal antibody (“MAB”) drugs, a class of biologic agents, may be given to individuals who do not respond to

corticosteroids or who develop symptoms when corticosteroid doses are lowered. Id. at 7. For some individuals with UC, consuming gluten can trigger or worsen symptoms like abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea, potentially leading to more frequent or severe flare ups. ECF 66-2 at 2. At ISP, gluten-free diet requests require an

FER, which is reviewed and approved by IDOC. Id. at 3. IDOC approval may be denied or revoked if commissary records demonstrate an inmate has been purchasing non- gluten free items. Id. Regular follow-ups with medical providers help manage chronic conditions such as UC. Id. When patients do not take medications as prescribed, do not comply with dietary recommendations, and do not show up for provider visits, it becomes difficult to understand their conditions, assess whether prescribed medications

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Ogden v. Atterholt
606 F.3d 355 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Goodman v. National Security Agency, Inc.
621 F.3d 651 (Seventh Circuit, 2010)
Harry Rodriguez v. Kenneth R. Briley
403 F.3d 952 (Seventh Circuit, 2005)
Farmer v. Brennan
511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Hayes v. Snyder
546 F.3d 516 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
Jackson v. Kotter
541 F.3d 688 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
Trade Finance Partners, LLC v. AAR CORP.
573 F.3d 401 (Seventh Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
DeJuan Lowe v. Nancy B. Marthakis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dejuan-lowe-v-nancy-b-marthakis-innd-2026.