Charles Sheppard v. Julie Ludwig
20-3531
| 7th Cir. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Charles Sheppard, a 400-pound Wisconsin inmate, fell from a plastic cell chair, was diagnosed with a concussion at a hospital, and returned to the prison with discharge instructions warning to seek immediate care for confusion, dizziness, or trouble walking.
- A special-needs committee met the day the hospital discharged him: it approved a sturdier metal chair but rescinded a prior accommodation allowing long-distance wheelchair use and offered a bench-seated walker instead.
- Less than 48 hours after the initial fall, Sheppard told Officer and Nurse Jan Britt he was "extremely loopy, dizzy, and disoriented" and requested a wheelchair or delivery of medications; Sheppard alleges Britt told him to use the walker and threatened a conduct report if he did not walk to health services.
- Sheppard attempted to walk with the bench-seated walker, became dizzy, fell down a hill, and hit his head again.
- Sheppard sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference based on (1) temporary use of an allegedly inadequate plastic chair, (2) the committee’s discontinuation of his wheelchair restriction, and (3) Britt’s directive that he walk while still symptomatic; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed as to the chair and wheelchair claims but reversed and remanded the deliberate-indifference claim against Nurse Britt, finding a triable fact question whether Britt willfully forced Sheppard to walk despite serious post-concussion symptoms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of plastic chair before committee met | Chair was unsafe given prior collapse and posed excessive risk | Chair’s specs showed high weight capacity; defendants investigated and planned review | Denied—no Eighth Amendment violation; short delay and inspection negated excessive-risk inference |
| Committee rescinding wheelchair restriction | Prior facility’s wheelchair order and concussion made wheelchair necessary | Committee reasonably chose walker to promote movement; discharge papers didn’t require a wheelchair | Denied—medical-judgment dispute; decision not so unreasonable to show deliberate indifference |
| Nurse Britt ordering Sheppard to walk post-concussion | Britt forced him to walk despite reported dizziness/confusion and threat of discipline | Britt relied on walker availability and discharge papers that didn’t list walking restrictions; denies threatening him | Reversed and remanded—genuine factual dispute whether Britt acted with deliberate indifference to a serious head injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate-indifference standard for prisoner safety/medical claims)
- Murphy v. Walker, 51 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 1995) (head injuries causing non-superficial harm ordinarily qualify as serious)
- Machicote v. Roethlisberger, 969 F.3d 822 (7th Cir. 2020) (on construing facts in favor of the nonmovant at summary judgment)
- Withers v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 710 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2013) (fact question where medical staff insisted on risky activity despite patient complaints)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (deliberate-indifference question where nurse withheld care and threatened patient)
- Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir. 2016) (deference to reasoned corrections/medical judgments unless plainly inappropriate)
- Proctor v. Sood, 863 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2017) (refusal of treatment or unreasonable course can support deliberate-indifference claim)