Abuse of Discretion – 8th Amendment Violation

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Randy McCaa v. Todd Hamilton, et al.,

Case No.: 19-1603

Officials: KANNE, ROVNER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Abuse of Discretion – 8^th Amendment Violation

Plaintiff Randy McCaa is a Wisconsin prisoner who alleges that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by responding with deliberate indifference to his threats to commit suicide or to harm himself in other ways. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants over McCaa’s pro se efforts to oppose the motion. In McCaa v. Hamilton, 893 F.3d 1027, 1034–35 (7th Cir. 2018), we ruled that in denying plaintiff’s fourth motion for recruitment of counsel, the district court had not addressed sufficiently McCaa’s ability to present his case himself. The district court had already denied earlier requests by McCaa to recruit counsel. We were most concerned about the effects of McCaa’s transfer to a different prison where he said he could not locate witnesses or obtain other discovery, as well as the effects of his fifth-grade reading level and serious mental illness. We remanded with instructions to the district court to reconsider recruitment of counsel, but we pointedly did not say that recruitment of counsel would be required.

On remand, the district court took a fresh look at the issue and reached the same decision to not attempt to recruit counsel. McCaa has appealed again, arguing that the district court failed to comply with our mandate. We affirm. Judge Stadtmueller wrote a detailed and persuasive opinion explaining why he did not think this was an appropriate case for attempting recruitment of counsel. He complied with our mandate and did not abuse his discretion in reaching that decision.

As recounted in our prior opinion, 893 F.3d at 1030–31, McCaa sued prison officials for violating the Eighth Amendment through their deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide and self-harm. The district court denied McCaa’s requests to recruit counsel and simultaneously granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment when it denied McCaa’s renewed request in 2016. The court decided that McCaa’s lack of adequate evidence and his failure to comply with local rules regarding summary judgment (specifically, to cite his evidence properly) doomed his case. Id. at 1033–34. We ruled that the district court had abused its discretion in denying McCaa’s motion for counsel.

On appeal, McCaa argues that the district court refused to comply with our mandate. He contends that the mandate required the court to assess whether, after his prison transfer, he could on his own obtain the discovery that he needed. “The mandate rule requires a lower court to adhere to the commands of a higher court on remand.” Carmody v. Bd. of Trustees of University of Illinois, 893 F.3d 397, 407 (7th Cir. 2018). We review de novo whether the district court complied with our mandate on remand. See EEOC v. Sears, 417 F.3d 789, 795 (7th Cir. 2005). We conclude that it did comply here.

In the end, the difficult mix of factors weighing for and against recruiting counsel for McCaa required a thoughtful exercise of discretion by the district court. Judge Stadtmueller provided such consideration. He did not abuse his discretion in denying McCaa’s renewed motion and in reinstating the earlier grant of summary judgment against McCaa.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.