Kevin Brooks v. Josh Richardson

131 F.4th 613 (7th Cir. 2025) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · March 14, 2025 · No. 24-1651

Summary

This Seventh Circuit opinion addresses whether a Bivens claim for constitutionally deficient medical care in a federal prison presents a new context warranting dismissal. The court held that the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard established in Carlson v. Green applies to the treating medical staff, allowing their claims to survive a motion to dismiss. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against two non-treating supervisors, concluding that imposing liability for policy formulation would constitute an impermissible extension of Bivens. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the treating defendants.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Writing for the Court
Easterbrook; Pryor; Kolar
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decision date
March 14, 2025
Docket number
24-1651
Procedural posture
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
Standard of review
de novo
Precedential value
published
Parties
Kevin Brooks v. Josh Richardson, et al.
Disposition
other

Topics

constitutional lawseparation of powersappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

civil rightsappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Bivens liability extends to claims of deliberate indifference to medical care in federal prisons
  2. Whether prison supervisors who did not provide direct medical treatment can be held liable under Bivens

Holdings

  1. Brooks has a viable Bivens claim under Carlson and the district court's dismissal was improper.
  2. The claims against supervisors Harbison and Schreiber are affirmed in dismissal; supervisors are not liable under Bivens absent personal involvement.

Key quotations

The Court has described the creation of a Bivens action as “a disfavored judicial activity” and “an extraordinary act that places great stress on the separation of powers.” (at 491)
We therefore hold that Brooks has a viable claim under Carlson and survives a motion to dismiss the complaint. (at 239)

Factual background

In a federal prison camp, medical personnel misdiagnosed inmate Kevin Brooks's appendicitis as constipation and COVID‑19, delaying hospital care for more than ten days. His appendix ruptured, causing peritonitis and severe pain before he eventually recovered.

Procedural history

The district court dismissed Brooks's Bivens claim for alleged deliberate indifference to medical care, holding the claim presented a new context. The Seventh Circuit reviewed the dismissal.

Remand instructions

The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…