Marvin Thomas v. Thomas Dart, 39 F.4th 835

Marvin Thomas was assaulted by another inmate at Cook County Jail in January 2016 and suffered physical injuries.
Thomas sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and other federal statutes) beginning in June 2017, alleging failure-to-protect claims against jail personnel; many claims were later dismissed or resolved against him.
Years into litigation Thomas sought leave to file a third amended complaint adding two intake clerks as defendants, alleging they altered intake forms to conceal his PTSD and thus caused his placement in the general population.
The district court previously instructed Thomas to limit amendments to identifying unit corrections officers; the court denied leave to add the intake clerks, finding the proposed amendment inconsistent with earlier positions and futile.
The district court concluded the intake clerks could not plausibly be charged with awareness of a specific substantial risk of assault and noted the September 2015 intake form in fact recorded mental-health issues.
Thomas also argued the district judge was biased; the court rejected that claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding amendment would have been futile and no judicial bias was shown.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend to add intake clerks	Thomas: discovery produced alleged falsified intake forms only in Oct 2019; amendment was timely and necessary to state new theory	District/court: amendment was inconsistent with prior positions, would cause delay, and was futile because it didn’t state a viable claim	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; amendment was futile
Whether the proposed claims against intake clerks stated a viable Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect claim	Thomas: clerks suppressed PTSD info, placed him in general population, creating substantial risk and causing injury	Defendants: mere placement in general population with PTSD is a generalized risk; clerks lacked notice of a specific substantial risk of assault	Failed — plaintiff could not plausibly show intake clerks would have appreciated a specific, substantial risk
Whether the district judge’s rulings demonstrated disqualifying bias under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)	Thomas: adverse orders and language show partiality and dismissal of his proposed claims without fair consideration	Defendants: adverse rulings and courtroom administration do not, by themselves, show bias; law requires objective appearance of partiality	Failed — no reasonable, well-informed observer would infer bias; recusal not warranted

Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (establishes objective-reasonableness standard for pretrial-detainee claims)
Kemp v. Fulton County, 27 F.4th 491 (7th Cir. 2022) (applies Kingsley objective standard to failure-to-protect claims)
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (framework for evaluating pretrial-detainee conditions claims adopted by other circuits)
Brown v. Budz, 398 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2005) (risk must be specific to detainee, not a mere general risk of prison violence)
In re Estate of Rice, 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012) (mental illness known to staff did not alone put them on notice of assault risk)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (adverse rulings are not proof of judicial bias)
Huon v. Denton, 841 F.3d 733 (7th Cir. 2016) (factors permitting denial of leave to amend)
Gandhi v. Sitara Capital Mgmt., LLC, 721 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2013) (amendment is futile if proposed claim is not viable)