1 F.4th 480
7th Cir.2021Background
- Robinson, a Wisconsin inmate, was given medication intended for another inmate; after taking it he became dizzy, passed out, and sustained a concussion.
- He initially questioned the medication’s source, confirmed no new prescription existed for him, yet took the pills; after the adverse event he was sent to a hospital and then refused further medication.
- A nurse later confirmed the prescription belonged to a different inmate; Robinson was not offered the medication again.
- Robinson sued multiple prison staff (misidentifying a nurse as “Nurse Anderson”), alleging deliberate indifference, failure-to-intervene by the health-services manager, and state-law negligence by the distributing nurses/officers.
- Robinson failed to timely respond to defendants’ summary-judgment motion; the district court deemed defendants’ facts admitted and entered summary judgment for defendants, and later denied Robinson’s Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it explained the district court erred to say failure to oppose alone justified granting summary judgment, but nonetheless held summary judgment was proper on the merits and on the state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have construed Robinson’s late filings as a response and been lenient because he is pro se | Robinson: district court should treat his belated filings as a response and be liberal because he is pro se | Defendants: Robinson missed the deadline; local rules allow deeming facts admitted; no timely opposition | Court: district court erred to say failure alone automatically justifies judgment, but properly applied local rule to deem facts admitted and grant summary judgment on the record |
| Whether Nurse Anderson (misidentified; actually Nurse Drone) was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need | Robinson: nurse directed him to continue medication after reaction, showing deliberate indifference | Defendants: nurse was not involved in his care and thus not deliberately indifferent | Held: no reasonable jury could find Nurse Anderson/Drone deliberately indifferent; she was not involved in his care |
| Whether the health-services manager is liable for failing to intervene | Robinson: manager failed to act to remedy the medication error or ensuing harm | Defendants: no underlying constitutional violation shown, so no failure-to-intervene liability | Held: no basis for liability because plaintiff submitted nothing showing an underlying constitutional violation |
| Whether Robinson’s state-law negligence claims survive despite notice-of-claim defect | Robinson: negligence claims against nurses/officers are actionable | Defendants: claims barred by Wisconsin notice-of-claim statute because plaintiff’s notice used generic names and did not strictly identify defendants | Held: negligence claims barred under Wis. Stat. § 893.82; notice failed to name defendants correctly |
Key Cases Cited
- Raymond v. Ameritech Corp., 442 F.3d 600 (7th Cir. 2006) (failure to file opposition does not automatically justify granting summary judgment)
- Marcure v. Lynn, 992 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2021) (same principle extended in Rule 12(b)(6) context)
- Yancick v. Hanna Steel Corp., 653 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2011) (movant must show summary judgment is proper on undisputed facts)
- Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2015) (district court may deem uncontroverted facts admitted under local rules)
- Walker v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 940 F.3d 954 (7th Cir. 2019) (deliberate-indifference standards and involvement in care matter)
- Gill v. City of Milwaukee, 850 F.3d 335 (7th Cir. 2017) (failure-to-intervene liability requires an underlying constitutional violation)
- Estate of Hopgood v. Boyd, 825 N.W.2d 273 (Wis. 2013) (Wisconsin requires strict compliance with notice-of-claim statute)
- Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2013) (Rule 59(e) relief limited to manifest error or new evidence)
- A&C Constr. & Installation Co. WLL v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 963 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2020) (Rule 59(e) not a vehicle to remedy district-court errors)