Donald McDonald v. Marcus Hardy, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8535

Background

Plaintiff Donald McDonald, incarcerated at Stateville, had been prescribed a low‑cholesterol diet after a 1998 diagnosis of high cholesterol and also suffers from arthritis.
In late 2009 Warden Hardy fired the prison dietician and cancelled all medical/prescription diets at Stateville; Assistant Warden Edwards refused to reinstate them. McDonald alleges the cafeteria cannot accommodate his prescribed diet post‑cancellation.
McDonald also alleges outdoor recreation was reduced to two days/week (5 total hours), which he contends is inadequate for his arthritis; he says other Illinois maximum‑security prisons provide more yard/gym time.
McDonald sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Hardy, Edwards, and former IDOC Director Godinez alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (diet and recreation) and an Equal Protection claim (disparate treatment across prisons). He sought damages and injunctive relief.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. On appeal the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded only the claim that Hardy and Edwards were deliberately indifferent by cancelling McDonald’s prescribed low‑cholesterol diet; it affirmed dismissal of the outdoor‑recreation and equal‑protection claims.
The Court noted discovery problems (defendants’ failure to produce certain records) and found defendants submitted little countervailing evidence; a jury could infer deliberate indifference from nonmedical officials’ interference with prescribed treatment and lack of consultation with medical professionals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cancelling a prescribed low‑cholesterol diet violated the Eighth Amendment	McDonald: nonmedical officials cancelled a physician‑recommended diet for a serious, chronic condition (high cholesterol), causing risk/harm	Hardy/Edwards: no valid prescription in recent years; medication is controlling his cholesterol; at most disagreement with medical staff	Reversed/remanded — summary judgment inappropriate; jury could find defendants deliberately indifferent because they cancelled prescribed treatment without medical consultation and produced no contrary medical evidence
Whether five hours/week outdoor recreation violated the Eighth Amendment	McDonald: limited yard time is insufficient to treat arthritis and cholesterol	Hardy/Edwards: no physician prescribed minimum yard time; inmate has other exercise opportunities; lack of medical prescription means no Eighth Amendment violation	Affirmed — plaintiff offered no medical prescription or evidence that yard‑time limitation constituted deliberate indifference
Whether Director Godinez violated Equal Protection by permitting other prisons to provide diets/yard time	McDonald: Stateville inmates receive less favorable treatment than Menard/Pontiac	Godinez: decisions are presumptively rational; plaintiff lacks personal knowledge and proof of disparate policies	Affirmed — McDonald lacked personal knowledge/evidence to overcome rational‑basis presumption
Procedural: discovery failures and injunctive‑relief defendant identity	McDonald: defendants failed to comply with court orders to produce medical and policy records, prejudicing his case	Defendants: contend plaintiff didn’t properly alert court or use Rule 56(d)	Court instructed district court on remand to address discovery failures and to add current Stateville warden as official‑capacity defendant for injunctive relief

Key Cases Cited

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires adequate prison medical care)
Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403 (7th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference standard)
Knight v. Wiseman, 590 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2009) (objectively serious medical condition test)
Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference to chronic conditions)
Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2010) (jury may infer causation from ignored requests for treatment)