Sanders v. Melvin

25 F.4th 475

Cordell SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Michael MELVIN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-3276

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 3, 2021

Decided February 1, 2022

Kevin R. Oliver, Kathleen L. Carlson, Rachel Hampton, Steven J. Horowitz, Leslie Kuhn-Thayer, Attorneys, Sidley Austin LLP, Maggie E. Filler, Daniel Greenfield, Attorneys, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Chicago, IL, Mitchell Brant Alleluia-Feinberg, Attorney, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Chaya M. Citrin, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Civil Appeals Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Michael Melvin, Daidra Marano, and Anthony Wills.

Julie Ann Teuscher, Alex C. Wimmer, Attorneys, Cassiday Schade LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees Andrea Moss, Kelly Haag, and Todd Nelson.

Gabriel Gillett, Attorney, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Amici Curiae Erwin Chemerinsky, Sharon Dolovich, Andrew Hammond, Jon D. Hanson, and David Rudovsky.

Before Kanne, Brennan, and Kirsch, Circuit Judges.

Kanne, Circuit Judge.

Cordell Sanders has "three strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"). That means he cannot bring a lawsuit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless he plausibly pleads that he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. He did just that, indicating his belief that certain practices at the Pontiac Correctional Center, where he was housed in solitary confinement, would lead him to self-harm.

The district court found that this allegation was a lie designed to allow Sanders to sneak around the three-strikes rule and dismissed his entire suit as a sanction for misconduct. It did so without explicitly considering whether lesser sanctions would be appropriate instead.

Because we conclude that the district court's finding of fraud was clearly erroneous, and its failure to consider lesser sanctions was an abuse of discretion, we reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Sanders, a severely mentally ill inmate, has been in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC") since 2004. For eight of those years, he was held in solitary confinement. When he was sixteen years old, he was diagnosed with intermittent explosive disorder, an impulse control disorder, and depressive disorder. Since then, his diagnoses have expanded to include, among others, schizoaffective disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. His mental health has deteriorated during his time in solitary confinement.

Sanders has even attempted suicide, or otherwise engaged in self-harm, on multiple occasions. One time Sanders overdosed on Motrin ; another time he bit flesh out of his wrist. He alleges in his original and first amended complaints that the prison "require[s] ... inmates to self mutilate, overdose on pills, hang themselves, [and] fals[e]ly declare to be suicidal in order to speak with them about non-suicidal issues." More than once, Sanders alleges, he has been told that his concerns do not warrant attention unless he is in crisis.

For example, Sanders claims that one time in October 2015, after he expressed to a prison guard that he needed to speak with someone about his depression, "[t]he prison guard came back and told [him] that [Qualified Mental Health Professional Andrea] Moss stated that if [he] was n[o]t suicidal, no one wants to see him right now." Soon after that discussion, Sanders overdosed on Motrin.

Another time, he claims he saw Dr. Daidra Marano in the prison infirmary. He alleges that, in response to his assertion that he thought he had to declare he was suicidal in order to speak to a member of the mental health staff, Dr. Marano allegedly said, "that[']s what it seems like."

In July 2016, Sanders alleges he experienced a replay of the first event recounted above. He told a guard that he needed to speak to a social worker about an issue unrelated to suicide, and the guard left to consult Moss and returned saying that no one wanted to see him unless he was suicidal.

At one point, he alleges that he took Moss up on her proposition. After "fals[e]ly" declaring that he was suicidal, he was taken to Moss, who allowed him to speak with a social worker about an issue unrelated to suicide.

This pattern led Sanders to declare that "if the aforementioned mental health people in this count[y] continue with the self mutilation policy as a pre-condition to speak with a mental health person, he will eventually succeed in commit[t]ing suicide."

In his original complaint, Sanders described his mental health needs in detail. Below are some relevant portions of the complaint:

19. Defendants Andrea Moss, Dr. Marano, Kelly Haag, Todd Nelson, Linda Duckworth, Stephan Lanterman, have deliberately failed to devise the plaintiff a personalized treatment plan conducive to improving his mental illnesses in spite of his numerous requests on numerous occasions which has contributed to the Plaintiff's attempted suicide on October 27, 2015, [and] July 24th 2016 by swallowing dangerous amounts of motrin and other medications, self mutilation by way of biting flesh out of his wrist on July 27, 2016 while on suicide watch status which was made possible due to the non-mental health prison guards failure to adequately monitor inmates on suicide watch.

....

20. Since May 27, 2016, Plaintiff hasn[']t been given psychotherapy that he needs on a fixed basis [which] has contributed to his suicide attempts.

....

21. Plaintiff has informed defendants that the isolating stressful conditions of disciplinary isolation has exacerbated his [mental illnesses] ... and ha[s] repeatedly requested his release from disciplinary isolation and to be house[d] in a mental health setting which the defendants have failed to do which contributes to Plaintiff's suicide attempts.

....

27. Plaintiff reasonably foresee[s] that if defendants don[']t remove him from disciplinary isolation and into a mental health setting, and don[']t construct Plaintiff a personal mental health treatment plan at improving his mental health diagnosis, and if defendants continue to ... refuse to interview the Plaintiff on a weekly basis, that it will lead to more suicide attempts and or actual suicide, including defendants refusal to provide the Plaintiff with individual and or group psychotherapy, specialized psycho-educational groups, etc.

B. Procedural History

Sanders filed his original pro se complaint in September of 2016. The defendants still in the suit are Michael Melvin, Andrea Moss, Dr. Daidra Marano, Kelly Haag, Todd Nelson, Anthony Wills, Linda Duckworth, Stephan Lanterman, Teri Kennedy, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., and Rob Jeffreys (collectively, "the Defendants"). Melvin, Marano, Wills, Kennedy, and Jeffreys are referred to as the "IDOC Defendants," while Moss, Lanterman, Haag, Nelson, Duckworth, and Wexford are referred to as the "Wexford Defendants."

On the same day he filed the complaint, Sanders applied to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), which is a status that allows indigent prisoners to bring suits without prepaying the usual filing fee. There are some limits on who can proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who has three strikes—actions or appeals dismissed for being "frivolous, malicious, or fail[ing] to state a claim"—can only proceed without prepayment if he is "under imminent danger of serious physical injury." Id. Sanders is one such litigant, and he indicated as much in his application, noting that he was seeking IFP status under the "imminent danger exception."

The district court initially granted his application to proceed IFP, but after a merit review the court revoked its grant, finding that none of Sanders's allegations demonstrated that he was in imminent danger.

Sanders subsequently obtained representation and appealed to this court, and we vacated the revocation, restoring his IFP status. We determined that only one of Sanders's contentions sufficed to allege he is in imminent danger of serious physical harm:

But Sanders advances a stronger contention: that his mental condition ... disposes him to self-harm. He asserts that he has twice tried to commit suicide and at least once engaged in self-mutilation. According to his complaint, the mental-health staff at Pontiac ignores the problems of inmates in solitary confinement unless they engage in self-harm. ... That Sanders has attempted self-harm multiple times lends support to his allegation that a future attempt is "imminent" unless he is released from solitary or allowed mental-health care. Courts don't accept allegations of danger uncritically. But Sanders's history, coupled with the prison's diagnosis of his condition, makes his allegations plausible. And plausibility is enough in a pleading.

...

When the prospect of self-harm is a consequence of the condition that prompted the suit, a court should treat the allegation (if true) as imminent physical injury. And this is the kind of allegation Sanders has advanced. He contends that solitary confinement not only is injurious by itself but also causes prisoners to lose the benefit of mental-health care, and that only self-mutilation (or a credible threat of self-mutilation) restores that care.

Sanders v. Melvin , 873 F.3d 957, 960–61 (7th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted).

Although we allowed Sanders to proceed IFP, we did so with a caveat: "If Sanders's allegations of imminent physical harm are untrue, then he must pay the whole filing fee promptly. ... And if it turns out that Sanders has lied in an effort to manipulate the judge, the case may be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction even if he comes up with the $400." Id. at 961 (citations omitted) (citing Thomas v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. , 288 F.3d 305, 306–07 (7th Cir. 2002) ; Ammons v. Gerlinger , 547 F.3d 724, 725–26 (7th Cir. 2008) ). We then remanded the suit.

On remand, now represented by counsel, Sanders paid the filing fee, terminating his IFP status. He then filed an amended complaint, adding...