Ronald Beal v. Brian Foster, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17338

Plaintiff, a Wisconsin state prisoner, sues warden Foster and guard Schneider under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for cruel and unusual punishment.
District court dismissed at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim, relying on the notion that verbal harassment alone is nonactionable.
The court dismissed only Schneider, not Foster, and the plaintiff challenges the sufficiency of the harassment claim.
The court's hypothetical examples show verbal harassment can be as cruel as physical harassment, and may be actionable depending on severity and context.
Allegations include Schneider’s sexually explicit remarks, public urination by Schneider, and nonverbal conduct that could stigmatize the plaintiff; these may amount to more than mere verbal harassment.
The plaintiff alleges psychological harm, medical/psych services visits, and a grievance filed with the prison, with the grievance upheld on May 24, 2013; the findings of that grievance are not in the record, and the magistrate should have sought them.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether verbal harassment can amount to cruel and unusual punishment	Verbal harassment, depending on impact, can be C&U punishment.	Verbal harassment is generally nonactionable.	Remand to assess the full record; not necessarily barred by rule.
Whether the dismissal mischaracterized the allegations as merely verbal and ‘simple’	Harassment can be nonverbal and severe; dismissal misread the claim.	The district court treated it as simple verbal harassment.	Remand for clarifying and amplifying the allegations.
Whether the nonverbal and sexually explicit conduct supports Eighth Amendment claim	Nonverbal acts and sexual harassment increase harm and legality.	Only verbal harassment is at issue; nonverbal acts are not necessarily actionable.	Remand to develop and evaluate these allegations.
Whether the district court should obtain grievance findings to resolve the claim	Grievance findings could strengthen or weaken the claim; should be obtained.	Not clearly necessary at screening.	Remand to produce grievance findings and potential disciplinary actions.
Whether the court may proceed without appointing counsel or a hearing when pro se claims are unclear	Prisoners may need interviews or assistance to articulate claims.	Judges may not convert interviews into merits adjudication.	Affirmation that interviews may be used to clarify claims but not to determine merits; remand appropriate.

Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (verbal or psychological harm can constitute cruel punishment depending on context)
DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000) (‘standing alone, simple verbal harassment’ may be nonactionable, but context matters)
Williams v. Wahner, 731 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013) (pro se prisoners may require interviews to clarify claims; not merits determinations)
Henderson v. Wilcoxen, (7th Cir. 2015) (7th Cir. 2015) (interviews helpful to clarifying claims; not binding for merits)
Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 2003) (verbal harassment generally not actionable; context matters)