James Lewis v. Angela McLean
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13184
7th Cir.2017Background
- In February 2014 James Lewis, a Wisconsin inmate, experienced sudden severe back/neck pain and was immobilized in his segregation cell beginning about 5:15 a.m.; he pressed the emergency call button at 5:39 a.m.
- Lieutenant Joseph Cichanowicz and Nurse Angela McLean visited the cell circa 6:00 a.m.; they told Lewis he had to come to the cell door to be cuffed through the slot before being taken to the infirmary, despite his repeated statements that he could not stand or reach the door.
- Video and contemporaneous notes indicate Lewis remained largely immobile; McLean’s notes record a later call from Cichanowicz who said recorded video showed Lewis sitting motionless, but the defendants did not preserve earlier video files covering much of the incident.
- No medical call to the on‑call physician (Dr. Meena Joseph) was made until about 7:40 a.m.; Dr. Joseph then ordered hospital transport, and Lewis was taken to the ER and treated with morphine and discharged the same morning.
- Lewis sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and excessive force; he also asserted state malpractice claims against McLean and Dr. Joseph. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on constitutional claims and relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over malpractice; Lewis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether delay in providing medical care violated the Eighth Amendment (deliberate indifference) | Lewis: McLean and Cichanowicz knew he was in severe pain and unable to move but delayed calling the physician ~1.5 hours, prolonging suffering | Defendants: Lewis failed/refused to comply with orders to present limbs at cell slot; they were following policy and assessing circumstances | Reversed as to McLean and Cichanowicz: a reasonable jury could find deliberate indifference based on unexplained ~1.5 hour delay and evidence (video/notes) suggesting they knew he was immobile |
| Whether force used during extraction and transport was excessive | Lewis: Guards restrained, moved him, made him stand and did not use a stretcher, causing pain | Guards: Force was minimal, calm, necessary; 6‑minute video of extraction shows no malicious force | Affirmed for Shannon‑Sharpe and transporting guards: trial evidence shows reasonable response once physician ordered transport |
| Qualified immunity for defendants sued in their individual capacities | Lewis: conduct violated clearly established Eighth Amendment right to timely medical care | Defendants: their conduct did not clearly violate law; they acted per policy and in good faith | Qualified immunity denied for McLean and Cichanowicz as the right was clearly established and factual disputes permit finding of violation |
| Whether district court should have appointed counsel / retained malpractice claim | Lewis: needed appointed counsel to obtain/preserve evidence and complete discovery; malpractice claim may be complex | District court: declined appointment at summary judgment stage; relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over malpractice | Court recommended re‑consideration on remand: district court should consider appointing counsel and possibly reinstate malpractice claim against McLean |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (establishes deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (objective/subjective components of deliberate indifference standard)
- Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645 (7th Cir.) (seriousness standard: layperson perception or physician diagnosis)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (7th Cir.) (delays in treatment can constitute deliberate indifference, even brief unexplained delays)
- Trask‑Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672 (7th Cir.) (spoliation principles and duty to preserve evidence)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity framework)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity analysis principles)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity sequence is flexible)