933 F.3d 696
7th Cir.2019Background
- Jeffrey Leiser, an inmate in Stanley Correctional Institution’s mental-health unit, alleged PTSD from childhood sexual assault and reported that people standing directly behind him triggered severe symptoms.
- Leiser told Sergeant Karen Kloth (and others) not to stand directly behind him; he alleges Kloth increased the time she stood behind him, provoking panic, physical reactions, and skipped meals.
- Psychological services eventually diagnosed Leiser with PTSD in spring 2015 and arranged limited accommodation (medications dispensed by nursing) but did not communicate a standing-order accommodation to correctional staff.
- Leiser filed a § 1983 suit claiming Kloth’s conduct amounted to Eighth Amendment cruel-and-unusual punishment and sued supervisors Stoudt and Warden Richardson for failure to protect.
- The district court denied summary judgment, holding a clearly established right to be free from intentionally inflicted psychological harm; defendants appealed on qualified-immunity grounds.
- The Seventh Circuit reversed, holding non-medical staff were not clearly required under the Eighth Amendment to provide an individualized mental-health accommodation based only on an inmate’s self-report absent medical orders or an obvious need.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kloth’s standing behind Leiser after being told it triggered his PTSD violated the Eighth Amendment | Leiser: deliberate conduct intended to inflict psychological harm and humiliation unrelated to penological goals | Defendants: conduct was not clearly unlawful psychological torment; not an Eighth Amendment violation as a matter of law | Court: disputed facts assumed for plaintiff, but legal question decided for defendants — not clearly established as constitutional violation |
| Whether Leiser had a clearly established right to be free from intentionally inflicted psychological harm in these circumstances | Leiser: prior cases establish right to be free from calculated harassment that causes severe psychological injury | Defendants: no closely analogous precedent, and law wasn’t clearly established for non‑medical staff to provide ad hoc accommodations | Court: right was not clearly established with required specificity; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether non‑medical correctional staff must modify behavior based solely on inmate’s self‑report of mental health triggers | Leiser: argued staff must accommodate known triggers once informed | Defendants: absent medical orders or treatment plan, non‑medical staff may rely on medical personnel and are not obligated to implement ad hoc accommodations | Court: held non‑medical staff are not constitutionally required to do so absent medical directives; risk of manipulation supports immunity |
| Whether supervisors (Stoudt, Richardson) are liable for failing to act | Leiser: supervisors failed to protect after receiving complaints | Defendants: supervisory liability depends on underlying clearly established right | Court: because no clearly established right, failure‑to‑protect claims fail and supervisors entitled to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity can be immediately appealable)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework and discretion in prong order)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (objective standard for qualified immunity)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (rare cases where conduct is so egregious that prior precedent is unnecessary)
- Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2003) (not every psychological discomfort is an Eighth Amendment violation)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (Eighth Amendment prohibits calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs)
- Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2013) (example of obvious constitutional violation where qualified immunity did not apply)
- Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2018) (non‑medical staff must comply with medical directives; absence of medical order is important)