Antonio Smith v. John Kind
Court
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Importance
48%
Case Summary
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-2870 ANTONIO M. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN KIND, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:18-cv-01569-PP — Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge. ____________________ ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 2024 — DECIDED MAY 30, 2025 ____________________ Before HAMILTON, SCUDDER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Nearly 50 days into a hunger strike, Antonio Smith refused a correctional officer’s order to exit his cell for a daily wellness check. So for three days, offic- ers entered Smith’s cell, assisted him into a wheelchair, and transported him to the prison’s health unit—all without inci- dent. But perhaps frustrated by the noncompliance, Captain Jay Van Lanen changed course on day four by resorting to pepper spray for the extraction, knowing that Smith had a 2 No. 22-2870 medical contraindication to the spray. Smith reacted to the spray by gasping for breath for about eight minutes, only then to find himself placed naked in a cold cell for the next 23 hours. Because we conclude that a jury could find that both actions—using pepper spray and housing Smith in the frigid cell—lacked a legitimate penological purpose and thus vio- lated the Eighth Amendment, we disagree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on that ground. But in the end, troubled though we are by what Smith endured, the principle of qualified immunity leads us to af- firm. I A At the summary judgment stage, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here Antonio Smith. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). By his telling, the situation unfolded as follows. In October 2017 Smith began a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions at Green Bay Correctional Institu- tion in Wisconsin. Pursuant to prison policy, Smith had re- ported to the prison’s health unit for 45 days, each time de- clining to submit to a wellness check. On day 46, however, he declined to leave his cell, believing that prison policy allowed a nurse to come to him. A nurse did indeed go to Smith’s cell that day to document his refusal to submit to the wellness check. The following day correctional officers once again di- rected Smith to leave his cell to go to the health unit. Having received authorization to use force to gain Smith’s compli- ance, a correctional officer entered the cell with a taser drawn No. 22-2870 3 as Smith lay prone on his bed in a so-called “surrendering rit- ual”—hands behind his back, legs crossed at the ankles, and facing the wall. An extraction team followed closely behind and placed Smith in handcuffs and leg restraints before sitting him in a mobile restraint chair, essentially a wheelchair, which allowed them to transport him to the health unit. Smith continued to refuse orders to leave his cell, so the team fol- lowed this same procedure the next day. And when Smith re- fused for the fourth time, a new correctional officer, Captain Jay Van Lanen, took charge of the extraction and repeated the same process. But on November 28, 2017, when Smith refused to walk to the health unit for the fifth time, the process changed again. For reasons not clear in the record, the officers elected to vid- eotape this extraction. So although we continue to view gen- uine factual disputes in favor of Smith, we will defer to the video footage if it “firmly settles a factual issue.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 944 (7th Cir. 2018). Captain Van Lanen gathered a four-man extraction team outside the restrictive housing unit where Smith was housed. He stated that the extraction techniques used the previous three days were no longer suitable. Elaborating, Van Lanen said that Smith had “an extensive violent history with assign- ing hits on the streets to have people killed, assault[ing] within the prison system, and assault[ing] in general through- out his prison career.” Smith had also grown accustomed to the previous extraction method, Van Lanen observed, and the team had no way of knowing whether he had a weapon in his cell. Finally, Van Lanen explained that, because Smith was on a hunger strike, it was important to observe whether he could walk to the health unit, rather than be wheeled in a restraint 4 No. 22-2870 chair. On that basis, he believed it necessary to alter their ap- pr
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-2870 ANTONIO M. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
JOHN KIND, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:18-cv-01569-PP — Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge. ____________________
ARGUED DECEMBER 6, 2024 — DECIDED MAY 30, 2025
____________________
Before HAMILTON, SCUDDER, and LEE, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Nearly 50 days into a hunger strike, Antonio Smith refused a correctional officer’s order to exit his cell for a daily wellness check. So for three days, offic- ers entered Smith’s cell, assisted him into a wheelchair, and transported him to the prison’s health unit—all without inci- dent. But perhaps frustrated by the noncompliance, Captain Jay Van Lanen changed course on day four by resorting to pepper spray for the extraction, knowing that Smith had a 2 No. 22-2870
medical contraindication to the spray. Smith reacted to the spray by gasping for breath for about eight minutes, only then to find himself placed naked in a cold cell for the next 23 hours. Because we conclude that a jury could find that both actions—using pepper spray and housing Smith in the frigid cell—lacked a legitimate penological purpose and thus vio- lated the Eighth Amendment, we disagree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants on that ground. But in the end, troubled though we are by what Smith endured, the principle of qualified immunity leads us to af- firm. I A At the summary judgment stage, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, here Antonio Smith. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). By his telling, the situation unfolded as follows. In October 2017 Smith began a prolonged hunger strike to protest prison conditions at Green Bay Correctional Institu- tion in Wisconsin. Pursuant to prison policy, Smith had re- ported to the prison’s health unit for 45 days, each time de- clining to submit to a wellness check. On day 46, however, he declined to leave his cell, believing that prison policy allowed a nurse to come to him. A nurse did indeed go to Smith’s cell that day to document his refusal to submit to the wellness check. The following day correctional officers once again di- rected Smith to leave his cell to go to the health unit. Having received authorization to use force to gain Smith’s compli- ance, a correctional officer entered the cell with a taser drawn No. 22-2870 3
as Smith lay prone on his bed in a so-called “surrendering rit- ual”—hands behind his back, legs crossed at the ankles, and facing the wall. An extraction team followed closely behind and placed Smith in handcuffs and leg restraints before sitting him in a mobile restraint chair, essentially a wheelchair, which allowed them to transport him to the health unit. Smith continued to refuse orders to leave his cell, so the team fol- lowed this same procedure the next day. And when Smith re- fused for the fourth time, a new correctional officer, Captain Jay Van Lanen, took charge of the extraction and repeated the same process. But on November 28, 2017, when Smith refused to walk to the health unit for the fifth time, the process changed again. For reasons not clear in the record, the officers elected to vid- eotape this extraction. So although we continue to view gen- uine factual disputes in favor of Smith, we will defer to the video footage if it “firmly settles a factual issue.” Horton v. Pobjecky, 883 F.3d 941, 944 (7th Cir. 2018). Captain Van Lanen gathered a four-man extraction team outside the restrictive housing unit where Smith was housed. He stated that the extraction techniques used the previous three days were no longer suitable. Elaborating, Van Lanen said that Smith had “an extensive violent history with assign- ing hits on the streets to have people killed, assault[ing] within the prison system, and assault[ing] in general through- out his prison career.” Smith had also grown accustomed to the previous extraction method, Van Lanen observed, and the team had no way of knowing whether he had a weapon in his cell. Finally, Van Lanen explained that, because Smith was on a hunger strike, it was important to observe whether he could walk to the health unit, rather than be wheeled in a restraint 4 No. 22-2870
chair. On that basis, he believed it necessary to alter their ap- pr
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Legal Classification
Judicial Panel
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 10, 2025
Jurisdiction
F
Court Type
appellate
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools