Gregory Jones v. Kim Butler
663 F. App'x 468
7th Cir.2016Background
- Gregory Jones, an Illinois inmate, left protective custody at Pontiac so he could seek transfer back to Stateville for better medical care; instead he was transferred to Menard.
- At Menard Jones alleged threats from inmates and guards (including past testimony against two guards), and an incident where tactical officers slapped and kicked him and called him a “snitch.”
- Jones sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 naming the Menard warden and two DOC administrators, seeking primarily a transfer out of Menard and alleging failure to protect him from harm.
- The district court dismissed claims against the DOC administrators for lack of personal involvement but allowed the claim against the warden; after Jones was transferred back to Pontiac the court granted judgment on the pleadings as moot.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed whether the transfer mooted the case and whether Jones stated a claim for damages based on an objectively serious risk of harm or on the alleged battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of injunctive relief | Transfer does not fully moot because retransfer to Menard is possible | Transfer mooted injunctive claim; plaintiff sought only transfer in district court | Injunctive claim moot; mere speculation of retransfer insufficient to avoid mootness (citing Higgason) |
| Whether plaintiff waived damages by seeking only injunctive relief below | Jones argues he may pursue damages on appeal despite seeking injunctive relief in district court | Warden contends Jones limited himself to injunctive relief and waived damages | Court: plaintiff did not waive damages; incomplete demand does not bar relief, but waiver-on-appeal rules prevent adding new claims on appeal (Agnew, Sanjuan) |
| Whether complaint stated an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim against named defendants | Jones contends defendants knew of threats and failed to protect him, creating liability | Defendants argue they lacked personal involvement and acted (moved him to protective custody) before any assault occurred | Held: Complaint failed to allege a credible, excessive risk of serious harm or personal involvement sufficient for liability; no compensable injury occurred (Babcock) |
| Whether alleged tactical-team battery supports claims against named defendants | Jones refers to an alleged slap/kick incident as a battery supporting his suit | Defendants: those perpetrators were not named and Jones did not bring excessive-force claims against them; named defendants not responsible | Held: The named defendants cannot be held liable for others’ excessive force; plaintiff did not sue perpetrators or sufficiently plead supervisory liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Lehn v. Holmes, 364 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2004) (transfer can moot injunctive prison-relief claims)
- Higgason v. Farley, 83 F.3d 807 (7th Cir. 1996) (speculation of retransfer insufficient to avoid mootness)
- Agnew v. Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328 (7th Cir. 2012) (plaintiff may not add new claims on appeal)
- Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, 40 F.3d 247 (7th Cir. 1994) (same principle regarding appellate amendments)
- Bontkowski v. Smith, 305 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. 2002) (a relief demand is not an element of the claim; relief may be awarded even if not pleaded)
- Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267 (7th Cir. 1996) (recoverable Eighth Amendment claim requires an actual assault or reasonably preventable harm)
- Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2005) (supervisory liability requires facts showing a credible risk known to defendants)
- Dale v. Poston, 548 F.3d 563 (7th Cir. 2008) (same; conclusory allegations insufficient to show deliberate indifference)
AFFIRMED.