Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12658
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dennis Simpson, an obviously obese inmate, entered Bartholomew County Jail intoxicated (BAC .23%) to serve a weekend sentence; officers held him in a bunk-less holding cell for about 13 hours.
- After officers believed he was sober, Simpson was moved to a two-person cell and assigned a 30-inch-wide upper bunk because the lower bunk was occupied.
- Around 3:15 a.m., Simpson suffered seizure-like convulsions, fell from the upper bunk onto concrete, hit his head, and later died; defendants concede the fall and its linkage to an alcohol-withdrawal seizure for summary-judgment purposes.
- The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment violations: unconstitutional conditions of confinement (top bunk for obese/intoxicated inmate) and constitutionally inadequate medical care (for obesity and alcoholism); sheriff and five deputies were named.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants; appeal narrowed to individual-capacity claims against three deputies (York, Tindell, Harbaugh). The failure-to-train/official-capacity claim was not pursued on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conditions of confinement: assignment of obese, formerly intoxicated Simpson to narrow upper bunk | Assignment to a 30-inch upper bunk posed a substantial, objectively unreasonable risk to Simpson given his obesity and recent intoxication | Deputies kept Simpson in a holding cell for many hours, believed he was sober before transfer, and had no reason to perceive an excessive risk from the bunk assignment | Summary judgment affirmed: record does not show the bunk assignment objectively posed the requisite constitutional risk or that deputies knew of an excessive risk |
| Deliberate indifference in medical care for obesity and alcoholism/withdrawal | Deputiffs were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs by not providing appropriate medical accommodations and failing to anticipate withdrawal risk | Deputies tested BAC, monitored Simpson, asked about withdrawal, kept him in holding cell until believed sober, and had no knowledge Simpson was an alcoholic or likely to have delayed withdrawal seizures | Summary judgment affirmed: no evidence deputies knew of a serious, protracted withdrawal risk or intentionally disregarded known serious medical needs |
| Use of post-hoc medical policy (bottom-bunk guideline) as evidence of knowledge | Estate argues later-promulgated bottom-bunk criteria (350+ lb.) shows defendants should have known the risk | Defendants: policy post-dated incident or was not adopted policy at relevant time; violations of departmental rules do not alone establish constitutional violation | Court held policy does not establish Eighth Amendment knowledge or that defendants appreciated an excessive risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2016) (two-part Eighth Amendment conditions test: objective seriousness and deliberate indifference)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard of excessive risk)
- Peate v. McCann, 294 F.3d 879 (7th Cir. 2002) (conditions posing substantial risk violate Eighth Amendment)
- Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services, 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012) (uncomfortable or harsh conditions do not automatically equal unconstitutional treatment)
- Washington v. LaPorte County Sheriff’s Dept., 306 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2002) (deliberate indifference requires more than negligence)
- Hall v. Bennett, 379 F.3d 462 (7th Cir. 2004) (knowledge of risk may be inferred where risk is obvious)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment requires adequate medical care for inmates)
- Duckworth v. Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2008) (medical-treatment claims require proof of deliberate indifference and serious condition)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary-judgment review and inference of knowledge from obvious risk)
- Zentmyer v. Kendall County, 220 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2000) (framework for evaluating deliberate indifference claims)
- Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (summary judgment requires evidentiary showing of genuine dispute)