Willie Henderson v. Krista Wilcoxen
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17443
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Henderson, a civilly committed resident at Rushville under Illinois’ Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act, worked in the facility’s dietary department.
- Henderson sued four departmental staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing prior lawsuits and grievances against staff; the firing was formally based on disciplinary charges that he claims were fabricated.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and dismissed it with prejudice, characterizing the allegations as conclusory and noting Henderson’s oral statements at a telephonic merit-review hearing.
- The district judge conducted an ex parte, unrecorded telephonic interview with Henderson to clarify the complaint; no transcript or recording of that interview was preserved.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit found the district court relied on the secret telephonic interrogation and an outdated pleading standard for retaliation claims, and concluded further proceedings were required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of ex parte telephonic interview to screen complaint | Henderson needed oral clarification due to pro se status; interview helped state his claims | Court used the interview to assess merits and dismiss; defendants implicitly relied on that screening | Court held ex parte, unrecorded telephonic merit-review that resolves factual disputes is unlawful; transcript/recording required if interview used for more than clarification |
| Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a retaliation claim | Henderson alleged he was fired in retaliation for filing many lawsuits and grievances | District court said allegations were conclusory and insufficient to show retaliation as a substantial motivating factor | Court held the dismissal was improper absent a reliable record; complaint plausibly alleged retaliation and further proceedings were warranted |
| Pleading standard for retaliation claims | Henderson argued his allegations gave fair notice of retaliation | District court applied Benson v. Cady’s stricter standard requiring more than the ultimate fact of retaliation | Court rejected the district court’s reliance on Benson and noted later precedents favor notice pleading (Higgs, Walker) |
| Lack of appellate record/transcript | Henderson could not produce a record of the telephonic hearing; appellate review impossible without record | District court relied on its characterization of the interview but produced no transcript | Court held that without a transcript/record meaningful appellate review is impossible and reversal/remand is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Wahner, 731 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2013) (rejecting ex parte telephonic interrogation to resolve factual disputes when screening complaints)
- Higgs v. Carver, 286 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2002) (pleading standard favors notice pleading; ultimate-fact-only rule rejected)
- Walker v. Thompson, 288 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2002) (explicitly rejecting heightened pleading for retaliation claims)
- Benson v. Cady, 761 F.2d 335 (7th Cir. 1985) (older decision holding mere allegation of retaliation insufficient)
- Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2013) (noting problems with district-court actions lacking a record for appellate review)
R E S U L T: Reversed and remanded.