Strominger v. Brock
592 F. App'x 508
7th Cir.2014Background
- Strominger, an inmate using a wheelchair, sues under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Eighth Amendment seeking relief under § 1983.
- He alleges failures to provide a wheelchair-accessible cell and shower facilities compliant with federal standards.
- Three incidents at the prison form the basis: (1) transfer to a less accessible cell after a shank discovery; (2) unsafe portable shower chair leading to 34 days without a shower; (3) a later transfer with another wall-mounted chair but 133 days without a shower.
- Medical history includes back pain from a fall after the first transfer; plaintiff claims inadequate treatment.
- District court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims for compensatory damages.
- The Seventh Circuit reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, construes evidence in Strominger’s favor, and affirms on merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment to life’s necessities | Strominger asserts negligence evolved to deliberate indifference to disability. | Actions were at most negligence and did not deny life’s necessities. | No deliberate indifference; at most negligent. |
| ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims viability | Disability discrimination evident in transfer choices and shower chair adequacy. | Regulations allowed state flexibility; no compensable discrimination shown. | Discrimination not shown; no compensatory damages under ADA/Rehabilitation Act. |
| Causation of shower accommodations | Wall-mounted chairs delayed or withheld, violating standards. | Delays were negligent, not deliberate; alternatives existed (sink). | Remedy based on negligence, not intentional discrimination. |
| Joinder of the doctor’s claim | Post-fall medical treatment relates to overall disability claims. | Joinder proper; claims involve separate facts and transactions. | Court did not abuse discretion; proper severance. |
| Appointment of counsel | Court should recruit counsel due to pro se disability complex issues. | Requests properly denied; plaintiff could proceed with known facts. | District court did not abuse discretion; no need for counsel. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference standard for Eighth Amendment)
- Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (negligence vs. deliberate indifference in disability claims)
- Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (limited protection; temporary mobility impact insufficient for life’s necessities)
- Tesch v. County of Green Lake, 157 F.3d 465 (7th Cir. 1998) (accessibility standards; reasonableness afforded to officials)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (damages availability under Rehabilitation Act/ADA; requirement of intentional discrimination)
- CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland School Dist., 743 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment standard; favorable view for pro se plaintiffs)
- Johnson v. Snyder, 444 F.3d 579 (7th Cir. 2006) (deliberate indifference and reasonable accommodations)
- Hill v. Tangherlini, 724 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2013) (contextual noting limits on ADA remedies; standard for dissimilar facts)