Braithwaite v. Bille, 2:17-cv-00706

Plaintiff Joshua Braithwaite, a confined inmate, cut his left wrist with a sharp pen insert and was treated by a nurse; medical records described a "superficial abrasion" ~1 cm x 0.2 cm, cleaned and bandaged with no follow-up needed.
Plaintiff filed an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim alleging defendants failed to prevent his self-harm and sought damages for the injury and associated risk.
At summary-judgment stage the court denied the defendants' motion in part because it lacked a photograph and there were factual disputes about injury severity and plaintiff's psychological state.
A jury trial began but ended in a mistrial when jurors could not reach a unanimous verdict; the defendants renewed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Trial evidence included the nurse's notes and a photograph of the arm showing superficial abrasions; plaintiff presented no evidence of psychological injury or other recoverable harm.
The district court granted the renewed Rule 50(b) motion, holding the physical injury was de minimis under Seventh Circuit precedent and that a mere risk to life without a recoverable injury is not compensable, and dismissed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Braithwaite suffered a cognizable Eighth Amendment injury	Injury was sufficient: photograph shows redness, swelling, open wounds, blood/pus and pen marks; jury should decide	Medical records and photo show only superficial abrasion treatable with bandage/cream; such minor self-inflicted cuts are not actionable	Court: injury was de minimis/non-cognizable as a matter of law and claim fails
Whether the court may grant renewed Rule 50(b) after a mistrial	Implicitly argued issues should go to another jury	Motion was timely; court may consider preserved Rule 50 issues after mistrial	Court: Rule 50(b) properly considered and granted because no rational jury could award damages absent a cognizable injury
Whether a mere risk to life without demonstrated injury is compensable	Asserted risk and evidence of self-harm support damages	Risk alone (without recoverable injury or psychological harm) is not compensable under §1983	Court: Risk without recoverable injury not compensable; plaintiff offered no evidence of psychological harm

Lord v. Beahm, 952 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2020) (superficial self-inflicted cuts that require only minor treatment are not cognizable Eighth Amendment injuries)
Passananti v. Cook County, 689 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2012) (standard for granting judgment as a matter of law and assessment whether a rational jury could find for nonmovant)
Martin v. Milwaukee County, 904 F.3d 544 (7th Cir. 2018) (court must view trial evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party for Rule 50 review)
Petit v. City of Chicago, 239 F. Supp. 2d 761 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (district court may consider a timely renewed Rule 50 motion even after a mistrial)