Seventh Circuit reaffirms no § 1983 liability without personal involvement and strict enforcement of local summary judgment rules in prisoner medical-care litigation

Case: Francisco Rodriguez Ruiz, Jr. v. Robert Weinman (No. 24-3242)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date: October 10, 2025

Panel: Circuit Judges Hamilton, Pryor, and Kolar

Disposition: Affirmed (nonprecedential; to be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1)

Introduction

This appeal arises from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action by Wisconsin prisoner Francisco Rodriguez Ruiz, Jr., who alleged that the Health Services Unit (HSU) manager at Waupun Correctional Institution, Robert Weinman, was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs following a staircase fall. The case presented several recurring issues in prisoner civil-rights litigation: (1) when a district court must recruit counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1); (2) how strictly district courts may enforce local rules governing summary judgment responses; (3) what is required to compel discovery; and (4) the substantive bar to liability for administrative prison officials who neither treat inmates nor have authority over medical decisions.

After screening and narrowing of defendants (with a correctional officer dismissed at screening and summary judgment granted to another officer and a nurse for failure to exhaust administrative remedies), Weinman remained the sole defendant. The district court denied multiple motions to recruit counsel and to compel discovery, deemed Weinman’s proposed statement of material facts admitted when Ruiz failed to respond as required by local rule, and granted summary judgment for Weinman. The Seventh Circuit affirmed across the board.

Summary of the Opinion

Recruitment of counsel: No abuse of discretion in denying six motions to recruit counsel. Applying Pruitt v. Mote, the district court reasonably concluded that Ruiz made efforts to find counsel but was nevertheless competent to litigate through summary judgment given the clarity of his pleadings and his litigation experience.
Discovery: No abuse of discretion in denying two motions to compel. The first, directed at Weinman, was premature because it preceded screening of the operative complaint and was never renewed. The second sought video of Ruiz’s fall; the court reasonably denied it for failure to show relevance to the claim against Weinman (whose alleged involvement came months later) and for failure to meet-and-confer under local rules.
Local rule compliance at summary judgment: The district court acted within its discretion to strictly enforce E.D. Wis. Civ. R. 56(b)(2)(B)(i). Because Ruiz did not respond paragraph-by-paragraph to Weinman’s proposed material facts, those facts were deemed admitted.
Merits—deliberate indifference: On de novo review, summary judgment was proper. Under Farmer v. Brennan and Vance v. Peters, Weinman could be liable only if he was personally involved and knowingly disregarded an excessive risk. The record—deemed facts included—showed Weinman held a managerial, nonclinical role without authority to diagnose, prescribe, refer, or override medical decisions, and there was no evidence he knew Ruiz was receiving inadequate care.

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc): Establishes the two-part framework for recruiting counsel under § 1915(e)(1): (1) reasonable efforts by the plaintiff to obtain counsel or inability to do so; and (2) whether, given case difficulty, the plaintiff appears competent to litigate. The court affirmed denial of counsel by applying Pruitt to Ruiz’s filings, litigation experience, and the relative simplicity of the deliberate-indifference claim against a single administrative defendant.
McCaa v. Hamilton, 959 F.3d 842 (7th Cir. 2020): Emphasizes the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard and that generalized disagreement with the district court’s assessment is insufficient to show error. The Seventh Circuit noted Ruiz’s lack of specific arguments undermining the district court’s Pruitt analysis.
Gonzalez v. City of Milwaukee, 791 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2015): Articulates abuse-of-discretion review for discovery rulings. Supported affirmance of the denials of Ruiz’s motions to compel—one premature and never renewed; the other noncompliant with relevance and local meet-and-confer requirements.
Allen-Noll v. Madison Area Tech. Coll., 969 F.3d 343 (7th Cir. 2020): Approves strict enforcement of local summary judgment rules and the practice of deeming proposed facts admitted when not properly controverted. This authority undergirded the district court’s decision to treat Weinman’s proposed facts as undisputed.
Lockett v. Bonson, 937 F.3d 1016 (7th Cir. 2019): Confirms de novo review of summary judgment and the obligation to draw reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. The Seventh Circuit applied this standard and still concluded no triable issue existed.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994): Defines Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference: an official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety. The absence of evidence that Weinman had such knowledge or authority to intervene defeated Ruiz’s claim.
Vance v. Peters, 97 F.3d 987 (7th Cir. 1996): Requires personal involvement for § 1983 liability; respondeat superior does not apply. The court relied on Vance to conclude that a purely administrative HSU manager cannot be liable absent personal participation or knowledge coupled with deliberate disregard.

Legal Reasoning

1) Recruitment of counsel under § 1915(e)(1)

Applying Pruitt’s two-step inquiry, the district court acknowledged Ruiz’s attempts to obtain counsel and his medical and institutional circumstances, but found he remained capable of litigating through summary judgment. It pointed to the clarity of his second amended complaint, his ability to assemble and submit extensive exhibits, and his prior litigation experience. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit found no abuse of discretion: the district court used the correct standard, explained its reasons, and Ruiz offered no case-specific showing that he could not perform tasks necessary to oppose summary judgment in this relatively straightforward single-defendant case.

2) Discovery denials

The first motion to compel—filed before screening of the operative complaint—was denied as premature with an explicit invitation to refile after an answer and scheduling order issued. Ruiz never renewed it. The second motion sought video of the November 2021 fall, but at that point only Weinman remained in the case, and Ruiz’s claim focused on alleged cancellations of therapy, cane, and medication months after the fall. The district court denied the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) because Ruiz failed to show how the video was relevant to whether Weinman later acted with deliberate indifference. The motion also flouted E.D. Wis. Civ. R. 37’s meet-and-confer requirement. The Seventh Circuit held these were classic exercises of discretion consistent with Gonzalez.

3) Strict enforcement of local summary judgment rules

E.D. Wis. Civ. R. 56(b)(2)(B)(i) requires a party opposing summary judgment to respond paragraph-by-paragraph to the movant’s proposed material facts with record citations. Despite explicit notices from both opposing counsel and the court that uncontroverted facts would be deemed admitted (see E.D. Wis. Civ. R. 56(a)), Ruiz filed a generalized “objection” and appended 600 pages of exhibits without the required point-by-point response. The district court therefore accepted Weinman’s proposed facts as true. Relying on Allen‑Noll, the Seventh Circuit held that strict enforcement of these rules was within the court’s discretion and not an abuse.

4) Substantive Eighth Amendment analysis and summary judgment

On a record that, by operation of local rule, included Weinman’s proposed facts as admitted, summary judgment was straightforward. Under Farmer, a plaintiff must prove the official knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Under Vance, the official must be personally involved; supervisory status alone is insufficient. The admitted facts established:

Weinman was the HSU manager providing administrative support to advanced care providers.
He did not diagnose conditions, prescribe medication, order or cancel therapy, or refer to specialists, and lacked authority to override clinical decisions.
He did not treat Ruiz and had no reason to believe Ruiz was receiving inadequate care.

Even crediting Ruiz’s medical issues and his 600 pages of exhibits, there was no evidence that Weinman personally cancelled a cane, therapy, or medication, or that he knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to Ruiz’s health. To the contrary, the care trajectory— hospital x‑rays, prescription pain medication, physical therapy, issuance of a cane and later its discontinuation by a physician, and discharge from therapy after the authorized number of sessions—reflected ongoing medical management by clinicians. Without evidence tying Weinman to any decision or showing his authority to intervene, a reasonable jury could not find deliberate indifference. The Seventh Circuit therefore affirmed summary judgment de novo under Lockett.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although nonprecedential, the decision is a clear, persuasive reaffirmation of several controlling principles in the Seventh Circuit’s prisoner civil-rights jurisprudence:

Personal involvement remains indispensable: Administrative health services managers who neither provide clinical care nor possess authority to make or override medical decisions are unlikely to face § 1983 liability absent concrete evidence of knowledge and deliberate disregard of a substantial risk. Allegations that such an administrator “cancelled” care must be supported by record evidence of both authority and action.
Local rule compliance can be outcome-determinative: District courts may strictly require paragraph-by-paragraph responses to proposed material facts. General objections or large exhibit dumps do not create a genuine dispute. Parties—especially pro se litigants—must heed Rule 56 procedures or risk having the opposing party’s facts deemed admitted.
Discovery discipline matters: Motions to compel must be timely, relevant under Rule 26(b)(1), and compliant with local meet-and-confer requirements. Evidence about an event (e.g., a fall) may be irrelevant if the remaining claim concerns a later, different alleged constitutional wrong (e.g., cancellation of treatment by a different actor).
Counsel recruitment is exceptional, not routine: Under Pruitt and McCaa, courts will assess the plaintiff’s competence relative to the case’s complexity. Clear pleadings, prior litigation experience, and the ability to engage with the summary judgment process count heavily against recruiting counsel, even where the plaintiff has limited legal knowledge or resources.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deliberate indifference (Eighth Amendment): More than negligence or malpractice. The official must actually know about a serious risk to the inmate’s health or safety and consciously disregard it.
Personal involvement (Section 1983): A defendant is liable only for his own actions or omissions. There is no liability solely because the defendant supervises others (no respondeat superior).
Abuse of discretion vs. de novo review: Abuse of discretion means the appellate court defers to the trial court’s judgment unless it was unreasonable (used wrong law, ignored key facts, or made an illogical decision). De novo means the appellate court takes a fresh look with no deference.
Summary judgment and local rules: At summary judgment, the moving party lists proposed undisputed facts with citations. The opponent must respond line-by-line with record citations. Failure to do so often means those facts are deemed admitted.
Rule 26(b)(1) relevance and proportionality: Discovery is limited to nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Evidence about background events may be denied if it does not bear on the remaining claim against the remaining defendant.
Meet-and-confer (local Rule 37): Before moving to compel discovery, parties must attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute and certify those efforts in the motion.
Nonprecedential disposition (Fed. R. App. P. 32.1): The decision may be cited, but it is not binding precedent; it is persuasive authority only.

Additional Observations

Procedural narrowing matters: By the time the challenged discovery motion was filed, only Weinman remained. Discovery aimed at dismissed defendants or exhausted claims will typically be denied as irrelevant.
Role delineation within prison healthcare: The opinion underscores the legal significance of role boundaries. Where the record shows clinicians made the treatment decisions (e.g., issuing and discontinuing a cane, prescribing therapy and medications), liability is difficult to pin on an administrator lacking clinical authority.
Record curation: Submitting voluminous exhibits without connecting them to specific proposed facts or elements of the claim rarely suffices. Courts expect targeted citations that create genuine disputes of material fact.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit’s nonprecedential affirmance in Rodriguez Ruiz v. Weinman reinforces several settled rules that frequently decide prisoner medical-care cases: personal-involvement and knowledge are essential for § 1983 liability; administrative health managers generally cannot be liable for clinicians’ decisions they neither make nor control; district courts may strictly require compliance with local summary judgment procedures; discovery must be relevant to the claims and compliant with local process; and recruitment of counsel remains discretionary, guided by the plaintiff’s demonstrated competence relative to the case’s demands.

For litigants, the decision is a practical roadmap: tailor discovery to the remaining claims and parties, rigorously follow local rules at summary judgment, connect evidence to specific factual disputes, and, when seeking counsel, clearly explain why the case’s complexity exceeds one’s demonstrated abilities. For prison administrators and medical personnel, the opinion underscores the protective force of clear role delineations and the need to document the absence of authority over clinical decisions. While not binding, the ruling is a cogent application of Farmer, Vance, and Pruitt, and will likely be persuasive within the circuit on similar facts.