Livell Figgs v. Alex Dawson
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13477
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Figgs was convicted of murder and sentenced to 40 years; IDOC records (and a corrected mittimus) mistakenly reflected a revoked Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR) from a prior drug sentence, producing a later projected release date.
- IDOC staff prepared and relied on sentence-calculation worksheets that incorporated a nonexistent 2-year MSR revocation; Figgs was housed at Logan from 2005 and complained from 2009 onward that his release date was miscalculated.
- Figgs submitted inmate requests and an emergency grievance to Logan officials (including records supervisor Lori Fishel and Warden Alex Dawson); Fishel forwarded limited materials to the chief record office but did not recalculate or review the full master file; Dawson consulted Fishel and treated the grievance as non-emergency, staying it pending state-court proceedings.
- Figgs filed a state habeas/mandamus action; the state court denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion and the PRB then vacated its 1993 violation order; Figgs was released June 28, 2012.
- Figgs brought § 1983 claims for Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (prolonged, unlawful confinement) against Dawson and Fishel and a Fourteenth Amendment procedural-due-process claim against Dawson, plus state-law false imprisonment and negligence claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; the Seventh Circuit affirms as to Dawson, vacates as to Fishel, and reinstates the state claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference by Warden Dawson | Dawson knew Figgs alleged wrongful overdetention but unreasonably deferred action and withheld grievance, showing indifference | Dawson investigated by consulting record supervisor, relied on her judgment, and reasonably stayed the grievance pending state-court resolution | Affirmed for Dawson: his consultation and delegation to records staff were reasonable, not deliberately indifferent |
| Eighth Amendment — deliberate indifference by Records Supervisor Fishel | Fishel ignored substantive claims, sent only limited documents, never recalculated or contacted PRB/court, and her minimal steps were criminally reckless | Fishel forwarded the issue to the chief record office and relied on its determination; she lacked authority to override court/PRB orders | Reversed for Fishel: a reasonable jury could find her response so ineffectual as to constitute deliberate indifference; summary judgment vacated and case remanded |
| Fourteenth Amendment — procedural due process against Dawson | Dawson’s stay/deference to state-court process denied due process because it prolonged detention while relief was pending | State remedies (mandamus/habeas) were available and adequate; Figgs used them, so Parratt/Toney-El bar the § 1983 due-process claim | Affirmed for Dawson: state-court remedies were adequate and utilized; no procedural-due-process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Boss v. Castro, 816 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for summary judgment in § 1983 appeal)
- Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference framework)
- Burke v. Johnston, 452 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2006) (overdetention violates Eighth Amendment if product of deliberate indifference)
- Campbell v. Peters, 256 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2001) (failure to investigate sentence-credit errors can give rise to § 1983 claim)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified-immunity analysis)
- Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985) (prison officials’ failure to investigate release-date claim can violate Eighth Amendment)
- Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989) (failure by records officer to act on release-date claim can constitute deliberate indifference)
- Alexander v. Perrill, 916 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1990) (right to be free from overincarceration clearly established)
- Toney-El v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1224 (7th Cir. 1985) (state-court habeas/mandamus remedies adequate for deprivation claims)