Jeffrey Olson v. Donald Morgan
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8188
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Olson, an inmate, claimed his cellmate Russell attacked him after Olson warned Sergeant Schneider about Russell’s behavior and meds.
- The attack damaged Olson’s tooth; a dentist later removed the tooth after several letters and a referral by Tenebruso, the health-services manager.
- Olson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference by Schneider and Tenebruso, plus other officials not at issue here.
- The district court refused to appoint counsel, finding Olson competent pro se and not dealing with a particularly complex case, and granted summary judgment on all claims.
- The court held there was no evidence Schneider was aware of a substantial risk of harm to Olson or that Tenebruso knew Olson had a serious medical need; thus no deliberate indifference.
- On appeal, Olson challenged the court’s appointment of counsel and the grant of summary judgment; the Seventh Circuit affirmed both rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have appointed counsel for Olson | Olson contends he needed counsel | No right to court-appointed counsel in federal civil cases; discretionary recruitment only | No abuse of discretion; district court applied proper standard |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Olson’s Eighth Amendment claims against Schneider | Schneider knew of substantial risk and acted with indifference | Insufficient evidence of knowledge or deliberate indifference | Summary judgment proper; no reasonable evidence of Schneider’s knowledge of a substantial risk |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Olson’s Eighth Amendment claim against Tenebruso | Tenebruso ignored Olson’s dental needs and pain | No evidence she knew of serious medical need; delay not proven deliberate | Summary judgment proper; no evidence Tenebruso knew of urgent needs before referral |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007 (en banc)) (tests for appointing counsel in civil cases; district court discretion)
- Riccardo v. Rausch, 375 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2004) (guards not obligated to credit inmate warnings about others)
- Lindell v. Houser, 442 F.3d 1033 (7th Cir. 2006) (inference of risk can be sufficient for deliberate indifference)
- McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2010) (delay in treatment depends on seriousness and ease of treatment)
- Jajeh v. County of Cook, 678 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2012) (unsworn statements at summary judgment practice notes)