Jackson v. Esser

105 F.4th 948

Raynard R. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dane ESSER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-1346

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued November 3, 2023

Decided June 26, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 3:18-cv-00237 — William M. Conley, Judge.

Michael H. McGinley, Carla Graff, Bina M. Peltz, Attorneys, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian Patrick Keenan, Attorney, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Office of the

Attorney General, Madison, WI, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Kirsch, Jackson-Akiwumi, and Pryor, Circuit Judges.

Kirsch, Circuit Judge.

Raynard Jackson, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF), was placed in a cell without running water for five days. He alleged that Lieutenant Dane Esser, among other WSPF staff, knew that he did not have water and yet failed to turn the water on. After Jackson showed another staff member that he did not have water, the water was promptly turned on; however, he claimed Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff failed to provide him with medical care for his dehydration. Jackson filed grievances pertaining to these issues. But while he claims he filed ten grievances, the prison processed only five. After he exhausted his administrative remedies within the WSPF, he sued Lt. Esser and other WSPF staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court, only considering the processed grievances, and without holding an evidentiary hearing, found that Jackson had not exhausted his administrative remedies as to certain claims and defendants. Additional defendants, Nurse Beth Edge and Captain Dale Flannery, were dismissed at summary judgment, leaving only the claims against Lt. Esser for trial. The jury found for Lt. Esser on both claims.

Jackson raises several challenges to the district court's pretrial and trial rulings and the jury's verdict. We agree with him that the district court should not have disregarded his allegedly unprocessed grievances without holding an evidentiary hearing in line with Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739 (7th Cir. 2008), to resolve the disputed facts around his purported filing of those grievances. But we find no error in the court's conclusion that Jackson's processed grievances did not exhaust remedies as to all his claims. There was also no error in either the court's grant of summary judgment to Nurse Edge or its evidentiary rulings before trial. And Jackson cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the verdict because he failed to move for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial in the district court. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a Pavey hearing on the allegedly unprocessed grievances.

I

A

The prison where Raynard Jackson was incarcerated, the WSPF, has measures in place for prisoners who, like Jackson, have suicidal ideations. If a prisoner is at risk of self-harm or expresses that he may harm himself, he is removed from his regular cell, placed in an observation cell, and put on clinical observation status. The observation cells have one clear wall, enabling the regular monitoring of each prisoner by security staff every 15 minutes and by medical staff twice per day. The cells also have intercoms to enable prisoners to reach guards in a control room and cameras providing guards a live feed. Clinical observation status involves restrictions, including "styro meals-no spoon," which prevents a prisoner from receiving any plastic utensils, cups, or trays when he is given meals—meaning he does not get beverages with meals.

When the risk of self-harm has subsided, and a prisoner is released from observation status, the restrictions are lifted, and he is taken back to a regular cell. If a prisoner refuses to return to a regular cell, prison staff may forcibly remove him from the observation cell—an "extraction"—but extractions pose risks to staff and the prisoner. To mitigate these risks, it is standard protocol at the WSPF to turn off the water in an observation cell before an extraction, but only in some cases will staff use incapacitating agents similar to pepper spray. Staff are supposed to turn the water back on and clean the cell before another prisoner is placed in the cell.

B

On the night of May 22, 2013, Jackson notified a guard at the WSPF, Sergeant Daniel Suthers, that he was experiencing suicidal ideation. Not long after, other staff members—Captain James Boisen and Correctional Officers Michael Cockcroft and Timothy Jones—placed Jackson in observation cell A404. Five days before Jackson's placement in A404, staff had extracted the previous occupant after he experienced a mental breakdown and smeared his feces around the cell. They had turned off the water to the cell to facilitate the extraction. Jackson testified that, upon entering the cell, he observed and smelled feces and could also smell the remnants of incapacitating agents. He claimed he then discovered, after trying to wash his hands in the sink and flush the toilet, that the water was not running.

The parties vigorously dispute what took place from May 22 to 27. Jackson asserts that, upon discovering the water was off, he immediately notified the guards and asked that the water be turned on, but they did nothing. He also stresses that, on May 24, he told the shift commander, Lieutenant Dane Esser, who had been absent from the WSPF on May 22 and 23, that he did not have water, and Esser rebuffed him. All the while, he was on the styro meals-no spoon restriction that prevented him from getting beverages with his meals. By contrast, Lt. Esser maintains that Jackson told neither him, nor any of the staff members making observation rounds (including Sgt. Suthers and Officers Cockroft and Jones on May 22 and 23), that he did not have water. Moreover, Lt. Esser alleges that Jackson was released from observation status on May 24, thereby lifting the styro meals-no spoon restriction, but Jackson refused to leave the cell. That same day, both Doctor Stacey Hoem and Nurse Beth Edge checked in on Jackson. He asserts that he told them that he had no running water, but each testified to the contrary.

On May 27, in response to Jackson's complaints to security staff that he was experiencing chest pain, Nurse Edge went to his observation cell. Jackson testified that Nurse Edge initially only asked about his chest pains—she claimed she did not see him exhibiting signs of dehydration—until he yelled at her that he had no running water and showed her that no water was coming out of his sink. Nurse Edge then called a guard and told him to get Lt. Esser. Once Lt. Esser arrived, he radioed the control room and had the water immediately turned on. After the water was turned on, Jackson began drinking. Nurse Edge told Jackson to drink slowly and that she should examine him, but she provided no further treatment. Jackson contends that he sought to be examined and treated by Nurse Edge but that Lt. Esser would not allow him to leave his cell. Lt. Esser disputes this, claiming that Jackson refused examination and treatment.

C

Once he returned to his regular cell, Jackson began filing prisoner grievances about his time in observation. The prison processed five grievances. These processed grievances raised several issues: (1) WSPF-2013-10448, filed May 29, noted that "Lt. Dane Esser had an obligation to [p]ut my water back after he was notified on several occasions to do so"; (2) WSPF-2013-10449, also filed May 29, claimed that "Edge refused to treat my severe dehydration"; (3) WSPF-2013-10776, filed June 3, asserted that "Capt Flannery & Sgt Sutters denied me medical attention on 5/27/13"; (4) WSPF-2013-10778, also filed June 3, alleged that "Edge & c/o Runice attempted to obtain my labs for severe dehydration from 5/22/13-5/27/13 when she knows she was suppose[d] to take my labs on 5/27/13 . . . but she failed to do so then"; and (5) WSPF-2013-1128, filed June 10, claimed that "Esser jeopardized my personal health & safety for '3' of the '5' consecutive days my water was off in cell Alpha-404 denying me medical attention."

Jackson contends that he filed five other grievances that the WSPF failed to process. According to Jackson, those grievances contained allegations that: (1) Dr. Hoem, Capt. Boisen, Sgt. Suthers, Lt. Esser, Nurse Edge, and Officers Cockroft and Jones deprived him of humane conditions due to the presence of feces and incapacitating agents in his cell, as well as the lack of water; (2) Cockroft, Jones, and Edge denied him his nasal spray and inhaler while he was in the contaminated cell; (3) Esser ignored his complaints about the cell conditions; (4) Capt. Flannery failed to get him medical attention for his dehydration and chest pains caused by the feces and incapacitating agents in the cell; and (5) Hoem, Boisen, Suthers, Cockroft, Jones, Esser, and Edge singled him out by depriving him of basic humane conditions, access to water, and access to medical care.

D

Jackson filed suit, pro se, against 15 WSPF employees. After the district court screened Jackson's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, he was allowed to proceed on the following claims: (1) Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claims against Dr. Hoem, Nurse Edge, Lt. Esser, Sgt. Suthers, Capt. Boisen, and Officers Cockroft and Jones regarding the lack of running water and the presence of incapacitating agents and feces in his cell; (2) Eighth Amendment medical care deliberate indifference claims against Esser, Edge, Cockroft, and Jones for failing to provide him with nasal spray and his inhaler; (3) Eighth Amendment medical care deliberate indifference claims against Esser, Capt. Flannery, and Edge for refusing him medical care for his dehydration; and (4) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection class-of-one claims against Hoem, Esser, Edge, Suthers, Boisen, Cockroft, and Jones.

The defendants then moved for partial...