Civil Rights — cruel and unusual punishment

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — cruel and unusual punishment

Where a prisoner swallowed a guard’s keys, it did not violate the Eighth Amendment for officials to restrain him for five days until they passed through his system.

“Even if we were to find, at least in some context, that the conditions under which Gruenberg was confined for five days could have amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, the defendants here are entitled to qualified immunity. As Judge Griesbach reasoned in his opinion, ‘[t]his case presents a classic situation in which the doctrine [of qualified immunity] is required to shield officials acting in good faith in responding to a unique situation that involved both inmate health and prison security.’ While the condition in which Gruenberg was held was undoubtedly uncomfortable, there is no evidence in the record that demonstrates that any member of the prison staff showed ‘deliberate indifference’ to Gruenberg’s health or safety. In fact, the record shows otherwise—Gruenberg was monitored constantly to ensure that he was not in danger, and was visited 31 times by nurses and nine times by the prison’s clinical staff. The prison’s psychological staff also visited Gruenberg several times to check on his mental health. As Judge Griesbach rightly noted, such frequent medical and mental health monitoring is inconsistent with claims that the defendants intentionally or recklessly subjected Gruenberg to cruel and unusual punishment.”

Affirmed.

10-3391 Gruenberg v. Gempeler

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Griesbach, J., Manion, J.