By: Derek Hawkins//February 22, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: Alma Glisson v. Indiana Department of Corrections, et al.
Case No.: 15-1419
Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Cruel & Unusual Punishment
Appellant fails to produce sufficient evidence to combat summary judgment in matter alleging 8th amendment violation on behalf of deceased son.
“Further, where a plaintiff alleges that a lack of a policy caused a constitutional violation, she must produce “more evidence than a single incident to establish liability.” Calhoun v. Ramsey, 408 F.3d 375, 380 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing City of Okla. City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 822–23 (1985)). She must produce evidence of a “series of incidents” (Hahn v. Walsh, 762 F.3d 617, 638 (7th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1419 (2015)), or a “widespread practice constituting custom and usage.” Phelan v. Cook Cnty., 463 F.3d 773, 789 (7th Cir. 2008) (a “widespread practice” argument “would focus on the application of the policy to many different individuals”). Evidence of a series of incidents permits the inference that “there is a true municipal policy at issue,” and allows the factfinder “to understand what the omission means.” Calhoun, 408 F.3d at 380. By presenting a series of incidents where “the same problem has arisen many times and the [government entity] has acquiesced in the outcome,” a plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence that the lack of policy is in fact a de facto policy choice, not a discrete omission. Id. However, “[w]ithout evidence that a series of incidents brought the risk at issue to the attention of the policymaker, we cannot infer that the lack of a policy is the result of deliberate indifference.” Hahn, 762 F.3d at 637–38 (citing Calhoun, 408 F.3d at 380).”
Affirmed