Seventh Circuit Affirms that Short-Term Restrictive Measures Promptly Addressed by Prison Officials Do Not Constitute Deliberate Indifference under the Eighth Amendment

Commentary on: David A. Pearson, Jr. v. Christopher Stevens, et al., No. 24-3311, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (decided July 9, 2025)

1. Introduction

This non-precedential appeal arose from a § 1983 action brought by David A. Pearson, Jr., an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution (Wisconsin), against senior prison officials— Warden Christopher Stevens, the deputy warden, and the administrative captain. Pearson alleged that a combination of unsanitary living conditions (rodents, insects, limited toilet flushing, infrequent cleaning supplies and showers) and prolonged denial of physical recreation violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

The case was decided amid an unprecedented correctional-officer vacancy rate of approximately 40 %. That staffing crisis prompted the prison to curtail inmate movements and recreation. Pearson contended that the measures went too far; the defendants countered that they acted reasonably, continually mitigated the conditions, and lacked the culpable mental state (deliberate indifference) required for constitutional liability.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, but it corrected the district court’s procedural misstep regarding Local Rule 56 responses. Ultimately, however, the panel held that: (1) none of the challenged conditions, viewed individually or collectively, was “objectively sufficiently serious,” and (2) even if serious, the record could not support a finding that the officials were deliberately indifferent, given the temporary character of the restrictions and the ongoing remedial steps they undertook.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Procedural Ruling: The district court erred in deeming the defendants’ proposed facts admitted; Pearson had, in fact, filed a compliant response under E.D. Wis. L.R. 56(b)(2)(B). The appellate court therefore viewed the summary-judgment record in the light most favorable to Pearson.
Eighth Amendment Analysis:
- Objective prong: The alleged conditions—weekly showers, a toilet that could flush every five minutes, weekly access to cleaning supplies, periodic pest infestations subject to bi-weekly exterminator visits, and temporary recreation suspensions—fell below the threshold of a “sufficiently serious” deprivation.
- Subjective prong (deliberate indifference): Evidence showed that the defendants consistently implemented corrective measures (e.g., pest control, tiered restoration of recreation) while navigating extraordinary staffing shortages. No reasonable juror could infer callous disregard for inmate health or safety.
Outcome: Summary judgment for the defendants affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel’s reasoning is anchored in well-known Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit authorities that delineate the two-part Eighth Amendment test:

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)
Established the twin requirements of (i) an objectively serious deprivation and (ii) subjective deliberate indifference. Farmer remains the lodestar for prison-condition claims; the panel applied its framework verbatim.
Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 2008)
Held that frequent exterminations in response to pest problems defeat deliberate-indifference claims. The court analogized the bi-weekly pest control at Green Bay to the “frequent exterminations” in Sain.
Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019)
Distinguished between isolated plumbing issues and widespread, prolonged unsanitary exposure. Hardeman guided the panel’s conclusion that a toilet that locks only if repeatedly flushed is not comparable to the “hundreds of unflushable toilets” deemed unconstitutional in that case.
Gray v. Hardy, 826 F.3d 1000 (7th Cir. 2016)
Clarified that denial of cleaning supplies rises to an Eighth Amendment violation only in “extreme circumstances.” Weekly access to brooms, toilet brushes, and cleaning powder did not meet this stringent bar.
Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012)
Approved weekly showers as constitutionally adequate for non-disabled inmates. The panel cited Jaros in rejecting Pearson’s shower-deprivation claim.
Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422 (7th Cir. 1996)
Recognized that denial of exercise violates the Eighth Amendment only where “extreme and prolonged.” Pearson endured a three-week suspension followed by a two-week suspension—short of Antonelli’s threshold.
Rasho v. Jeffreys, 22 F.4th 703 (7th Cir. 2022)
Emphasized that ongoing efforts to rectify prison problems undermine deliberate-indifference claims, even if not perfect. The panel viewed the phased reinstatement of recreation through the Rasho lens.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

Applying the Farmer framework, the Seventh Circuit sequentially tackled the objective and subjective components:

Objective Seriousness
The court parsed each complained-of condition and found none “so grave” as to deprive Pearson of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Key observations included:
- Toilet could flush every five minutes; malfunction occurred only upon misuse.
- Pest control visits every two weeks demonstrated active management.
- Weekly provision of cleaning supplies, plus at least one weekly shower, comported with circuit standards.
- Exercise restrictions were episodic and linked to a documented 38-41 % staffing deficit.
Subjective Deliberate Indifference
Deliberate indifference demands a “criminal-recklessness” state of mind. The record, however, showed:
- Defendants tracked infestation complaints and procured exterminators.
- Movement restrictions were lifted incrementally as staffing stabilized.
- No evidence suggested officials ignored or trivialized known risks.
Therefore, reasonable jurors could not find the requisite culpability.
Procedural Clarification
By recognizing Pearson’s timely Local Rule 56 submission, the panel reinforced that pro-se litigants’ filings, if technically compliant, must be credited. The correction did not alter the outcome but underscores appellate vigilance over summary-judgment procedure.

3.3 Potential Impact of the Decision

Even though the disposition is designated “nonprecedential,” it still carries instructive force under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. Its practical effects include:

Staffing Crises Defense Articulated: Prison administrators confronting acute staff shortages may rely on this case for guidance on implementing temporary movement restrictions, provided they adopt demonstrable remedial measures.
Clarified Evidentiary Burden: Inmates must produce specific factual detail—dates, durations, adverse health outcomes—to convert generalized discomfort into an “objectively serious” deprivation.
Procedural Signal to District Courts: Summary-judgment rules should be applied even-handedly; erroneous deeming-admitted can be corrected on appeal yet still waste judicial resources.
Reinforcement of Incremental Remedies: Courts will view phased solutions (e.g., gradually reinstating recreation) as evidence of administrative good faith rather than indifference.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Deliberate Indifference: An official knows of, and disregards, an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. It is more blameworthy than negligence but less than purposeful harm.
Objective vs. Subjective Prongs: Objective: Were the conditions severe enough to violate contemporary standards of decency?
Subjective: Did the officials act (or fail to act) with the requisite culpable mindset?
Summary Judgment: A procedural device allowing the court to decide a case without trial when no genuine dispute of material fact exists.
Local Rule 56(b)(2)(B) (E.D. Wis.): Requires the non-moving party to respond to each proposed finding of fact paragraph-by-paragraph, citing record evidence.
Non-precedential Disposition: An opinion that, under circuit rules, is not intended for publication and lacks binding effect but may be cited for persuasive value.

5. Conclusion

Pearson v. Stevens underscores the rigorous two-part showing that prison-condition plaintiffs must satisfy under the Eighth Amendment. While the Seventh Circuit corrected the district court’s procedural oversight, it nevertheless affirmed that: (1) short-term sanitary and exercise inconveniences, mitigated by ongoing remedial efforts, do not rise to constitutional magnitude, and (2) administrators grappling with severe staffing deficits are not deliberately indifferent when they impose narrowly-tailored, temporary restrictions and work diligently to resolve them.

Going forward, prison officials can draw measured comfort from this ruling: decisive but reasoned responses to operational crises, coupled with documented efforts to abate adverse conditions, will generally withstand judicial scrutiny. Litigants, conversely, are reminded that broad allegations—unsupported by concrete, adverse consequences—will rarely survive summary judgment.