Melvin Phillips v. Sheriff of Cook County
828 F.3d 541
7th Cir.2016Background
- Four current/former Cook County Jail detainees sued Cook County and the Sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional deliberate indifference in dental care; case filed in 2009 and consolidated into a class action.
- District court initially certified two classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3); later held a six-day bench trial on injunctive relief and subsequent briefing on decertification.
- Evidence showed the Jail population ~9,500 with variable lengths of stay; Cermak Health Services provided dental care and staffing increased from one dentist (pre-DOJ CRIPA action) to multiple dentists by 2014.
- Individual detainee testimony revealed widely varying experiences: some received timely evaluations/medication and treatment, others experienced long waits for return-to-clinic appointments or never received prescribed meds.
- District court found no classwide common question after trial (particularly post-staffing increases and existence of policies aligning with standards), decertified the Rule 23(b)(2) class, narrowed the Rule 23(b)(3) class to pre-staffing-change claims, and denied injunctive relief as moot.
- While appeal was pending, detainees filed a Rule 60(b) motion claiming newly discovered evidence; district court declined to alter its decertification order and the appellate court dismissed the appeal of the Rule 60(b) disposition as improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the certified classes satisfied Rule 23(a)(2) commonality after trial | There are common classwide questions (e.g., no face-to-face nurse eval within 24 hours; untimely return-to-clinic appointments) that could be resolved for all class members | Individual claims vary by time, provider, and reason for delay; no single policy or practice caused classwide harm | Court affirmed decertification: plaintiffs failed to identify a common question capable of resolving the claims "in one stroke" |
| Whether alleged delays (24-hour evaluations/return visits) constitute systemic deliberate indifference | Delays in evaluations and return appointments are classwide practices causing gratuitous pain | Delays and harm are contextual and vary by detainee; delay significance depends on condition severity and ease of treatment | Court held delay questions are individualized; cannot be adjudicated classwide absent proof of systemic, egregious practice |
| Whether a systemic policy/practice existed to supply the necessary "glue" for class treatment | Scheduling authority vested in clerks and prior understaffing created systemic deficiencies | Staffing increased and policies aligned with standards; no proof that scheduling policy caused delays constituting constitutional violations | Court found insufficient evidence of a systemic, unconstitutional policy affecting all class members; limited commonality only for narrow earlier period with one dentist |
| Whether detainees could use Rule 60(b) to reopen decertification during interlocutory appeal | New evidence justified relief and reconsideration | Rule 60(b) applies only to final judgments; motion was improper during interlocutory appeal | Appeal from denial of Rule 60(b) dismissed: Rule 60(b) not available for interlocutory orders and district court made no materially altering reconsideration order |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution that will resolve a central issue in all claims in one stroke)
- Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Schs., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (individualized factual differences can defeat commonality absent a unifying illegal policy)
- Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., 764 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2014) (need for conduct common to class; review of class certification for abuse of discretion)
- Parsons v. Ryan, 754 F.3d 657 (9th Cir. 2014) (class may proceed if plaintiffs show concrete, well-defined illegal policies/practices causing systemic risk)
- Cleveland-Perdue v. Brutsche, 881 F.2d 427 (7th Cir. 1989) (distinction between isolated incidents and systemic deficiencies for deliberate indifference claims)
- Wellman v. Faulkner, 715 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1983) (examples of systemic deficiencies supporting class claims)
- Mullins v. Direct Digital, LLC, 795 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. 2015) (common question may exist where misrepresentations are provable classwide rather than dependent on individualized effects)