James R. Washington v. Michael Dittmann, Sue Novak, Larry Fuchs, and Trish Anderson

Summary

The Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment to prison officials in James R. Washington’s Eighth Amendment claims concerning alleged restrictions on exercise and recreation time caused by law-library access. The court held that the evidence did not show a sufficiently serious deprivation of exercise or deliberate indifference to a substantial health risk, and that the wardens were alternatively entitled to qualified immunity. The court also granted summary judgment to Nurse Trish Anderson, finding that her removal of an unsupported medical restriction did not establish deliberate indifference.

Holdings

1. The wardens were entitled to summary judgment because the evidence would not permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that Washington's movement or exercise was restricted so severely as to threaten his health.
2. Washington failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the wardens knew of and disregarded a substantial risk to his health.
3. The wardens were independently entitled to qualified immunity because Washington identified no clearly established Supreme Court or controlling Seventh Circuit precedent establishing a right to more recreation time in order to obtain additional library passes.
4. Nurse Anderson was entitled to summary judgment because the undisputed evidence showed that she discontinued the July 5, 2017 restriction only after determining that no supporting prescriber's order existed, while the May 31, 2017 restriction remained in place.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the wardens' enforcement of CCI's recreation and library scheduling policies deprived Washington of exercise sufficiently significant to threaten his health in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
2. Whether the wardens acted with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk to Washington's health.
3. Whether Nurse Anderson acted with deliberate indifference by discontinuing a medical restriction that lacked a supporting prescriber's order.
4. Whether the wardens were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established law prohibited their conduct.

Disposition

other