Michael Corbitt, Jr. v. Wisconsin Department of Correc
20-1497
| 7th Cir. | Jul 27, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Michael Corbitt, a Wisconsin inmate, alleged that radio-controlled sliding doors at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility closed on him after an escorted hospital visit.
- Facility policy required staff to ensure the intake sally port was clear before opening or closing the doors.
- Corbitt alleged officers “were not paying attention” and sued the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and unnamed officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for declaratory relief and damages.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, treating the claim as state-law negligence rather than an Eighth Amendment claim.
- On appeal Corbitt argued his facts supported an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim and that he should be allowed to amend; the Seventh Circuit held the allegations described only negligence and affirmed.
- The Seventh Circuit also noted the district court erred in stating Corbitt would receive a § 1915(g) “strike,” because dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not one of the § 1915(g) strike grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether facts alleged state an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim | Corbitt: officers violated facility policy and were deliberately indifferent by closing the door on him | Defs: conduct was inattentive/negligent, not conscious disregard of a substantial risk | Allegations show at most negligence; not deliberate indifference, so no § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether district court should have given leave to amend before dismissal | Corbitt: pro se plaintiff should be allowed to amend and name additional officials | Defs: (implicit) dismissal was proper; no relevant factual allegations change outcome | Court: ordinarily leave to amend is required, but amendment here would be futile given pleadings, so dismissal affirmed |
| Whether dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike | Corbitt: dismissal should not count as a strike | District court: stated a strike was incurred | Court: dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction is not a § 1915(g) strike; district court erred in saying so |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate-indifference test: known or reckless disregard of substantial risk)
- Smith v. Dart, 803 F.3d 304 (accept plaintiff’s pleaded facts as true on appeal)
- Estate of Her v. Hoeppner, 939 F.3d 872 (negligence is insufficient for § 1983 Eighth Amendment liability)
- Estate of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740 (failure to follow prison policy alone does not establish a constitutional violation)
- Abu-Shawish v. United States, 898 F.3d 726 (pro se plaintiffs ordinarily should be given leave to amend)
- Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768 (same: courts should allow amendment to cure defects in pro se complaints)
- Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (defines when a dismissal counts as a § 1915(g) strike)
- Haury v. Lemmon, 656 F.3d 521 (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a § 1915(g) strike)