Marque Bowers v. Thomas Dart
1 F.4th 513
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- On December 31, 2012 Marque Bowers was attacked by other inmates at Cook County Jail; he sustained serious back injuries and began using a jail‑provided wheelchair.
- Cook County Jail had limited ADA‑compliant cells; except for one month, Bowers lived in cells without accessible showers or toilets after the attack.
- Bowers filed an initial grievance (Jan. 3, 2013) complaining that the officer on duty failed to respond; his administrative appeal was denied and he learned of the denial on Feb. 26, 2013. A later internal investigation cleared the officer.
- In federal court (Feb. 22, 2016) Bowers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect (against officers Rottar, Puckett, Tucker), brought a Monell claim alleging the Sheriff’s “vertical cross‑watching” observation policy caused the attack, and alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for failing to provide ADA‑compliant housing.
- The district court dismissed the individual failure‑to‑protect claims as unexhausted (PLRA) and the Monell claim as time‑barred; the ADA/Rehab Act claims proceeded to trial but the jury returned a verdict for the Sheriff and the district court denied post‑trial motions. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowers exhausted his failure‑to‑protect § 1983 claims under the PLRA | Bowers argued his administrative grievance about the officer’s non‑response related to the same harm and satisfied exhaustion | Sheriff argued grievance addressed only the officer’s response during the attack, not prior notice by multiple employees, so exhaustion of the claimed theory failed | Affirmed: grievance did not present the same substantive claim; PLRA exhaustion required and was not met |
| Whether Bowers’s Monell claim was timely or tolled during internal investigations | Bowers argued limitations tolled while the Office of Professional Review investigated the officer’s conduct (investigation concluded June 2015) | Sheriff argued tolling runs only while prisoner exhausts PLRA remedies; internal affairs investigation does not provide a prisoner remedy and does not toll | Affirmed: Monell claim untimely; internal investigation does not toll limitations under PLRA principles |
| Whether the jury verdict for the Sheriff on ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims should be set aside (Rule 50/59) | Bowers argued evidence established he was a qualified individual with a disability and the jail discriminated by not providing ADA housing; he also argued prior court findings on disability should control | Sheriff argued medical and other trial evidence permitted a reasonable jury to discredit Bowers’s claimed paralysis and to find the jail did not regard him as disabled | Affirmed: ample evidence for a reasonable jury to doubt disability and ‘‘regarded as’’ status; denial of Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (2016) (courts cannot excuse PLRA exhaustion)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy/custom or final policymaker)
- Pavey v. Conley, 663 F.3d 899 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal affairs investigation ordinarily does not provide a prisoner remedy for PLRA tolling)
- Johnson v. Rivera, 272 F.3d 519 (7th Cir. 2001) (§ 1983 claims borrow state limitations and PLRA tolling rules)
- Ruiz‑Cortez v. City of Chicago, 931 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 2019) (standard for Rule 50 review: high bar; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (courts may disregard evidence the jury is not required to believe when reviewing sufficiency)
- Lacy v. Cook County, 897 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2018) (district court cannot give preclusive effect to its own classwide factual findings on individualized ADA liability)