Samterious Gordon v. Drew Cross, 20-1139

Background:

Before transfer to New Lisbon, a dentist told Gordon an upper-right tooth needed filling or extraction; Gordon did not seek follow-up until pain recurred two years later.
On January 19, 2018 Gordon submitted a sick-call request for dental care; nurse Lynn Dobbert reviewed it the next day, did not examine records or him, deemed it non-urgent, and forwarded it to the on-site dentist.
On February 13 a fragment of Gordon’s tooth broke; he says he showed the fragment to Officers Fraundorf and Cross who refused to contact health services; that evening he submitted another request asking for pain medication and reporting the tooth had fallen out.
Dobbert again forwarded the February 13 request without assessing him or offering pain meds; the dentist (then off duty) later classified the request as urgent, saw Gordon on February 19, and extracted the tooth.
Gordon sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Wisconsin negligence law against Dobbert, the two officers, the dentist, and others; the district court denied his motions for counsel, excluded certain evidence, tried claims against Dobbert and the two officers, and a jury returned verdict for defendants.
On appeal Gordon challenged several pretrial evidentiary rulings, the denial of counsel/appointment of an expert, alleged spoliation of security footage, and the sufficiency of the evidence; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility/use of Jan. 19 sick-call request	Gordon: Jan. 19 denial showed prior inadequate care that contributed to deterioration and was relevant	Defs: The trial was limited to conduct after Feb. 13; earlier request would confuse jury	Court: Exclusion/limitation was proper under Rule 403; Gordon could use it for context but not to expand trial scope
Admission of dentist's inmate-complaint response	Gordon: Dentist’s response blaming nursing shows duty/breach by Dobbert	Defs: The response is an unqualified attestation on an ultimate issue and not admissible without expert testimony	Court: Exclusion justified (expert/ultimate-issue attestation); harmless because Dobbert admitted not following triage protocol
Sanctions/spoliation for missing security footage	Gordon: Footage would contradict officers and warrants sanctions or curative instruction	Defs: No bad-faith destruction; issue was not timely raised below	Court: Gordon failed to preserve the argument; record lacks evidence of bad faith; no Rule 37(e) relief warranted
Appointment of counsel or court-appointed expert; sufficiency of evidence	Gordon: Needed counsel to gather evidence/find expert; needed expert under Wisconsin malpractice law; verdict against the weight of the evidence	Defs: Claims were straightforward; Gordon could present his own case; no showing expert necessary; sufficiency challenge not preserved	Court: Denial of counsel and refusal to recruit expert was not an abuse of discretion; Gordon never showed the need for a court-appointed expert; sufficiency challenge waived for failure to move under Rule 50(b); verdict was not conscience-shocking

Key Cases Cited

Thomas v. Cook Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
Henderson v. Wilkie, 966 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2020) (Rule 403 jury-confusion analysis)
Pittman by and through Hamilton v. Cty. of Madison, 970 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2020) (expert-opinion admissibility principles)
Jordan v. Binns, 712 F.3d 1123 (7th Cir. 2013) (harmlessness of evidentiary exclusion where admission would not change outcome)
Lewis v. McLean, 941 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2019) (preservation and review limits for spoliation claims)
Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc., 845 F.3d 772 (7th Cir. 2016) (spoliation and bad-faith standards)
Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (standards for appointment of counsel in civil cases)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (factors for recruiting counsel)
Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (preservation required for JMOL/sufficiency challenges)
Rainey v. Taylor, 941 F.3d 243 (7th Cir. 2019) ("conscience-shocking" standard for upsetting jury verdict)