Gary Orlowski v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 17991
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Alexander (dorm officer) found inmate Alexander Orlowski asleep at ~3:45 a.m.; observed intermittent/abnormal breathing, unresponsiveness to attempts to wake him, and an inmate reported something was wrong.
- Alexander logged that Orlowski "appears to have a severe sleeping disorder" and told supervisor Sergeant Manns; no medical emergency was called and Orlowski remained unattended for hours.
- Corrections manager Ertman observed the log entry and Orlowski later that morning; Orlowski was found unresponsive at ~6:10 a.m., pronouced dead at 6:54 a.m.; cause: methadone overdose; experts said timely care between ~3:45–5:48 a.m. would have saved him.
- Estate and father Gary sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Alexander and Manns (and others); district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; appeal followed.
- Seventh Circuit: reversed summary judgment on the Estate’s Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim (trial required because material factual disputes exist); affirmed dismissal of Gary’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim; remanded indemnity claim contingent on Eighth Amendment outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alexander and Manns were deliberately indifferent (Eighth Amendment) | Orlowski showed obvious, serious need (intermittent breathing, unresponsiveness); officers knew or should have known and failed to summon care | Actions (or inaction) were not deliberate indifference; facts show snoring/common sleeping pattern or reasonable response | Reversed: material factual disputes about awareness and response preclude summary judgment; claim goes to jury |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for Eighth Amendment claim | No – law clearly established that ignoring an inmate’s obvious, serious medical condition is unconstitutional | Yes – defendants lacked fair warning given assertedly minor symptoms (snoring) | Reversed as to immunity: assuming Estate’s facts, right was clearly established; factual disputes also affect immunity determination |
| Whether Gary (father) has a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to recover for loss of relationship with his adult son | Gary argues interference with familial relationship by defendants' conduct | Defendants argue no constitutional right to recover for loss of companionship of an adult child absent intentional interference | Affirmed: circuit law bars recovery for loss of relationship with an adult child; no evidence of intent to interfere |
| Whether indemnity claim against Milwaukee County should proceed | Estate seeks indemnification under Wisconsin law if Eighth Amendment claim survives | County resists liability; district court dismissed related claims | Remanded: indemnity claim outcome depends on trial results for Estate’s Eighth Amendment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to prisoners’ serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective knowledge and disregard of substantial risk establishes deliberate indifference)
- Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610 (serious medical condition is diagnosable or so obvious that a layperson would perceive need for care)
- White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (clearly established law requires obviousness to a reasonable officer)
- Russ v. Watts, 414 F.3d 783 (no constitutional right to recover for loss of companionship of an adult child)