Octavius Jordan v. Milwaukee County House of Corr
680 F. App'x 479
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Octavius Jordan, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to extreme cold in his unit and to his asthma and chronic back pain.
- Jordan and three fellow inmates submitted declarations alleging the unit was frigid (ice on windows, visible breath) and that inmates repeatedly filed grievances about the cold for two consecutive winters.
- Prison staff (including CO Rebecca Goss) and the facility’s heating mechanic disputed the cold allegations and said blankets were restricted in common areas for safety.
- Medically, Jordan went five weeks without an albuterol inhaler and without his prescribed gabapentin; Nurse Practitioner Floyd Elftman initially treated him with other medications and deferred inhaler/gabapentin pending further evaluation; a physician later prescribed both.
- District court granted summary judgment for all defendants, finding insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference except as to the unit’s temperature (but not linking most officials to knowledge or culpability), and held medical care decisions did not show a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit vacated in part and remanded: it found triable issues as to certain defendants on the cold/conditions claim (Goss, the superintendent and two assistants, and Milwaukee County) but affirmed summary judgment on the medical claims against all medical and administrative defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were unit conditions (extreme cold) unconstitutional? | Jordan: unit was freezing; conditions aggravated asthma and constituted Eighth/Fourteenth Amendment violation. | Defendants: unit temperatures were reasonable; evidence (mechanic, CO) rebuts extreme-cold allegations. | Genuine dispute exists about temperature; jury could find unconstitutional conditions. |
| Did defendants know of and act with deliberate indifference to the cold? | Jordan: frequent grievances and staff presence mean Goss and administrators must have known and failed to act. | Defendants: lack of direct proof they knew; limited response (blanket in cell) was reasonable. | Jury could infer knowledge and deliberate indifference as to Goss, superintendent and assistant superintendents, and county. Qualified immunity denied. |
| Were medical providers deliberately indifferent by denying inhaler and gabapentin? | Jordan: Elftman refused inhaler/gabapentin, based treatment on cost and ineffective alternatives; delayed care caused harm. | Defendants: treatment choices were within accepted medical judgment; cost can be a permissible factor. | Summary judgment affirmed: plaintiff failed to show substantial departure from accepted professional judgment; no deliberate indifference. |
| Monell/municipal liability for heating and medical policies | Jordan: county/Armor had customs/policies leading to inadequate heat and denial of treatments. | Defendants: no evidence of policy/custom causing violations; House of Correction not a suable entity. | County substituted for HOC; evidence supports a jury inference of a county custom/policy re: heating but not medical policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haywood v. Hathaway, 842 F.3d 1026 (7th Cir. 2016) (extreme cold can violate Eighth Amendment; inadequate response can show deliberate indifference)
- Dixon v. Godinez, 114 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 1997) (failure to provide adequate warmth can violate inmates’ rights)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability for constitutional violations based on official custom or policy)
- Petties v. Carter, 836 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2016) (standard for deliberate indifference in medical-treatment claims requires substantial departure from accepted professional judgment)
- Whiting v. Marathon Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 382 F.3d 700 (7th Cir. 2004) (county, not the subordinate correctional entity, is the proper municipal defendant)
- Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636 (7th Cir. 2014) (procedural note on substituting proper municipal defendant)