Frankie Walker, Sr. v. Guy Groot
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 15068
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Walker, a civil detainee at Rushville Treatment & Detention Center, wrote a 2009 letter seeking information about conditional release; he had a court-appointed expert’s recommendation but had not been officially committed.
- Treatment staff assigned Walker a "decision making model" exercise; Walker sued two treating doctors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation for that assignment.
- Walker proceeded pro se at trial with standby counsel; he actively participated (testified, questioned witnesses, introduced exhibits). The jury found for defendants.
- On appeal Walker challenged (1) the district court’s jury instruction on causation/motivating factor and (2) admission of certain treatment records (Exhibits 14 and redacted 22A) as privileged and prejudicial.
- The Seventh Circuit found Walker waived both challenges by failing to preserve objections at trial (and in some instances affirmatively stating no objection), and declined to apply plain-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction on motivating factor/causation | Instruction misstated law by relieving defendants of burden to show they would have acted absent protected speech | Instruction was proper; plaintiff failed to object at conference | Waived; no plain error — Walker repeatedly said "no objection" |
| Admission of Exhibit 14 (progress note by Schostak) | Should have been excluded as privileged and prejudicial | Admitted; Walker used the exhibit in cross and did not object | Waived — Walker introduced/relied on it at trial; no plain error |
| Admission of Exhibit 22A (redacted progress note by Dr. Koch) | Admission violated patient-psychiatrist privilege and was unduly prejudicial | Court redacted prejudicial parts, found remainder relevant and admissible; Walker’s trial objections were on hearsay/relevance, not privilege/prejudice | Waived as to privilege/prejudice; remaining trial objections not pursued on appeal; no plain error |
| Entitlement to plain-error review | Error was plain and prejudicial, warranting reversal despite waiver | Plain-error review is rare in civil cases; Walker did not meet the demanding four-part plain-error test | Denied — Walker failed to show plain, prejudicial error affecting substantial rights or judicial fairness |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Dieball, 724 F.3d 957 (7th Cir.) (party may not raise an issue first on appeal)
- Higbee v. Sentry Ins. Co., 440 F.3d 408 (7th Cir.) (plain-error review in civil cases is limited)
- Spiegla v. Hull, 371 F.3d 928 (7th Cir.) (motivating-factor causation framework in retaliation cases)
- Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859 (7th Cir.) (elements of First Amendment retaliation claim)
- Griffin v. Foley, 542 F.3d 209 (7th Cir.) (preservation requirements for jury-instruction objections)
- Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 732 F.3d 710 (7th Cir.) (plain-error review for admission of evidence is discretionary)
- Williams v. Jader Fuel Co., Inc., 944 F.2d 1388 (7th Cir.) (specific trial objection on one ground precludes raising different grounds on appeal)