819 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2016), 15-2254, Bolling v. Carter

Docket Nº:15-2254
Citation:819 F.3d 1035
Opinion Judge:Posner, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:QUASIM BOLLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VICTOR CARTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Attorney:QUASIM BOLLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Chicago, IL. For VICTOR CARTER, Correctional Officer, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAVIS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HILL, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GLASS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAPLES, Defendants - Appellees: Nicolas Paul Castiglione, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COOK COUN...
Judge Panel:Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 26, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Page 1035

819 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2016)

QUASIM BOLLING, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VICTOR CARTER, et al., Defendants-Appellees

No. 15-2254

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

April 26, 2016

Submitted, April 13, 2016.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 12 C 3432 -- Robert M. Dow, Jr., Judge.

QUASIM BOLLING, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Chicago, IL.

For VICTOR CARTER, Correctional Officer, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DAVIS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER HILL, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GLASS, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER STAPLES, Defendants - Appellees: Nicolas Paul Castiglione, Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COOK COUNTY STATE'S ATTORNEY, Torts/Civil Rights Litigation, Chicago, IL.

Before POSNER, RIPPLE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Posner, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at Cook County Jail, fell and injured his back, and sued six correctional officers, contending that they had manifested deliberate indifference to an acute medical need, thus violating his rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983); Jackson v. Illinois Medi-Car, Inc., 300 F.3d 760, 764 (7th Cir. 2002); cf. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Walker v. Benjamin,

Page 1036

293 F.3d 1030, 1040 (7th Cir. 2002). They had refused to move him to a lower bunk even though a doctor at the jail determined that he needed to be in a lower bunk. There was no ladder to his upper bunk and because of his injury he couldn't climb up to it without a ladder and so had to sleep on the floor until his term of confinement ended and he was released from the jail. There is no suggestion that because of jail crowding or other factors it would have been infeasible to assign him to a lower bunk--or that the floor was a comfortable place for him to sleep.

The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, precipitating the plaintiff's appeal to us. The plaintiff advances other claims against the defendants besides their refusal to assign him to a lower bunk, but those claims have no merit and do not warrant discussion.

When the plaintiff fell, which was in January 2012, he asked the defendants to find him a lower bunk. They said they couldn't do that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP