792 F.3d 828
7th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Sidney Collins is a civil detainee (sexually violent person) detained at Rushville; he alleges inability to climb a top bunk due to carpal-tunnel syndrome and other orthopedic problems.
- Collins had a prior low-bunk permit in DOC custody; Dr. Hughes Lochard, a Rushville physician, denied a low-bunk permit until a neurologist diagnosed carpal-tunnel syndrome over two years after Collins began complaining.
- Collins sued Dr. Lochard under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Fourteenth Amendment standard for civil detainees); two supervisors were dismissed on summary judgment and are not part of this appeal.
- At trial Collins initially secured exclusion of details about his decades-old rape conviction; at trial Dr. Lochard mentioned Collins had been incarcerated for 26 years, prompting objection and a curative instruction limiting use of the conviction to credibility.
- The jury returned a verdict for Dr. Lochard; Collins did not file any post-trial motions and appeals pro se raising (1) the district court should have declared a sua sponte mistrial for the remark about length of sentence, and (2) the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judge had duty to declare a sua sponte mistrial after Lochard mentioned length of sentence | Remark was so prejudicial no curative instruction could cure; only mistrial would suffice | Curative limiting instruction was adequate; judge has discretion and need not declare mistrial sua sponte | No abuse of discretion in refusing a sua sponte mistrial; limiting instruction was sufficient |
| Whether jury verdict was unsupported by the evidence (manifest weight) | Verdict against manifest weight; documentary record undermines Lochard's testimony | No direct response at appellate level because no Rule 50 post-trial motion was made | Issue not reviewable on appeal because Collins failed to file a Rule 50 post-trial motion; appellate review barred by Unitherm |
Key Cases Cited
- McGee v. Adams, 721 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 2013) (Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard for civil detainees)
- Christmas v. City of Chicago, 682 F.3d 632 (7th Cir. 2012) (trial-court discretion regarding mistrial and curative measures)
- Wilson v. City of Chicago, 758 F.3d 875 (7th Cir. 2014) (presumption that juries follow limiting instructions)
- Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift–Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394 (U.S. 2006) (failure to make post-trial JMOL under Rule 50 bars appellate sufficiency review)
- Consumer Prods. Research & Design, Inc. v. Jensen, 572 F.3d 436 (7th Cir. 2009) (reaffirming Unitherm rule in Seventh Circuit)
- Maher v. City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2008) (same)