James Washington v. Renee Schueler, 19-2925

James Washington, a Wisconsin inmate, was prescribed custom orthotic insoles and the podiatrist recommended extra‑wide athletic shoes (e.g., New Balance/Nike).
A prison nurse failed to record the podiatrist’s first recommendation; the initially provided insoles were lost; at the second visit the nurse recorded “athletic‑style shoes.”
The prison later authorized insoles; a committee (medical and non‑medical members) denied ordering brand‑name extra‑wide shoes, concluding insoles fit state‑issued medical shoes.
Washington eventually received state medical shoes and insoles eight months after the original recommendation but contends the insoles did not fit the medical shoes.
The district court issued a scheduling order warning about Rule 56 deadlines; Washington did not pursue discovery during the allowed period and moved for more time under Rule 56(d) without an affidavit; the court denied the motion and granted summary judgment for the nurse and two administrators.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 56(d) extension for discovery	Theft of legal papers necessitates more time to start discovery to oppose summary judgment	Washington had ample time, failed to file an affidavit, delayed pursuit of discovery, and offered only speculation	Denied — no affidavit, untimely, speculative fishing expedition
Nurse liability for failing to record recommendation (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference)	Omission delayed insoles/shoes and caused harm	Three‑week delay not a serious risk; nurse later recorded "athletic‑style shoes"; no link to later misplacement; Washington already owned Nike shoes	Summary judgment for nurse — no evidence of deliberate indifference
Administrators’ liability/policy forbidding brand‑name shoes	Administrators barred purchase of brand‑name therapeutic shoes and committee improperly overrode podiatrist	No evidence of a policy forbidding outside vendor purchases; committee members not named as defendants; no causation shown	Summary judgment for administrators — no policy or causation shown
Judicial bias claim	Adverse rulings show bias	Rulings follow law and record	Dismissed — no disqualifying bias shown

Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2019) (view facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for serious medical needs)
Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (application of deliberate indifference standard in prison medical cases)
Kallal v. CIBA Vision Corp., Inc., 779 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2015) (Rule 56(d) requires affidavit or declaration)
Citizens for Appropriate Rural Rds. v. Foxx, 815 F.3d 1068 (7th Cir. 2016) (party who stalls prosecution cannot seek additional discovery to avoid summary judgment)
Helping Hand Caregivers, Ltd. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., 900 F.3d 884 (7th Cir. 2018) (Rule 56(d) motion cannot be based on mere speculation)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (standards for judicial bias and disqualification)