473 F. App'x 507
7th Cir.2012Background
- Thompson, an inmate at Dixon Correctional Center, sues under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging overcrowding and deplorable Unit 61 conditions violate the Eighth Amendment.
- At filing (late 2010), Unit 61 housed about 110 inmates, with plans to add around 60 more in the following year.
- Alleged unit conditions included too few toilets/showers, exposed electrical wiring, moldy/leaky ceilings, emergency exits in disrepair, and no evacuation procedures.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing to challenge ongoing/future overcrowding, premature exhaustion, and alleged fraud on the court for omitting a prior struck case.
- Thompson appeals arguing standing to challenge current and future overcrowding; exhaustion was excusable; and omission was inadvertent, not fraudulent.
- The Seventh Circuit affirms, applying independent grounds: lack of standing for future overcrowding; exhaustion available; and misrepresentation in litigation history justified dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge overcrowding | Thompson; standing for current and future overcrowding | Thompson lacks injury-in-fact for future overcrowding; standing at litigation start controls | No standing for future overcrowding |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies | Exhaustion excused due to obstruction by prison officials | Remedies were available; obstruction did not excuse exhaustion | Exhaustion not excused; remedies available |
| Fraud on the court / misrepresentation in filings | Omission was an oversight, not intentional | Omission constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation | Sanction for misrepresentation upheld; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wis. Right to Life State PAC v. Barland, 664 F.3d 139 (7th Cir. 2011) (standing requires injury-in-fact; future injury insufficient)
- Goldhamer v. Nagode, 621 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2010) (standing requires injury at commencement of litigation)
- Parvati Corp. v. City of Oak Forest, 630 F.3d 512 (7th Cir. 2010) (standing timing; injury must exist when suit filed)
- Pollack v. United States DOJ, 577 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2009) (standing requirements; timing considerations)
- Dale v. Lappin, 376 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2004) (availability of grievance procedures for exhaustion)
- Hoskins v. Dart, 633 F.3d 541 (7th Cir. 2011) (misrepresentation constitutes grounds for dismissal; sanctions warranted)