Jamaine Brown v. Nathaniel Silva

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 13, 2025*
Decided February 14, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1670
JAMAINE BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATHANIEL SILVA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-cv-1522-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Jamaine Brown, a Wisconsin prisoner, appeals the grant of summary judgment
for Nathanial Silva, a correctional officer, in Brown’s suit alleging that Silva violated his
Eighth Amendment rights by needlessly placing Brown in danger of falling down the
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 24-1670 Page 2
stairs and then causing him to fall. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the video recording of
the incident resolves any factual disputes in Silva’s favor, we affirm.
At the time of the incident, Brown was housed in a second-floor cell in the
Restrictive Housing Unit of Waupun Correctional Center. On October 24, 2022, Silva
was assigned to the unit and was responsible for escorting prisoners to and from the
showers. Though Brown had sciatica, sometimes walked with a limp, and had
previously fallen, he had no medical restrictions on how he was to be escorted.
Nevertheless, when Silva escorted Brown, Silva usually disregarded the unit’s policy
that prisoners’ hands must be cuffed behind them and would instead cuff Brown’s
hands in front to alleviate his difficulty walking. On the day of the incident, however,
Silva cuffed Brown with his hands behind him.
That day Silva also told Brown that he had to shower downstairs, even though
the second-floor showers on his floor were empty. (Silva disputes that those showers
were unoccupied when Brown’s turn came.) After Brown’s shower, Silva escorted him
back to the stairs and told Brown not to fall, because he would not catch Brown. (Silva
also disputes that he said this.) At the top of the staircase, Brown’s legs gave out, Silva
lost hold of Brown’s arm, and Brown fell backwards down the full flight of stairs. After
the fall, Brown was taken to the emergency room and diagnosed with a concussion,
neck strain, and bruises.
Brown sued Silva under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his rights under
the Eighth Amendment. Brown asserted that Silva was deliberately indifferent to a
serious risk of harm to Brown because he cuffed Brown’s hands in the back, needlessly
forced Brown to navigate stairs, and finally intentionally “dropp[ed]” Brown down the
flight of stairs. Silva first moved for summary judgment on the ground that Brown had
not exhausted his administrative remedies, but the district court denied the motion.
Silva then moved for summary judgment on the merits, submitting as evidence a video
of the incident to support his argument that he had not been deliberately indifferent.
The court agreed with Silva and granted his motion. The video, the court
observed, directly contradicted Brown’s statement that Silva had intentionally dropped
him. Instead, it showed Silva tightly holding onto Brown’s arm and slowly and
carefully walking up the stairs with him. When Brown slipped at the top of the stairs,
Silva’s grip broke, but Silva still attempted to regain his hold on Brown and stop him
from falling. After the fall, Silva and other nearby officers immediately rushed to assist
Brown. Based on that video, the district court concluded that a reasonable jury could
not find deliberate indifference in how Silva escorted Brown. Silva’s decisions to cuff

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 24-1670 Page 3
Brown in back and have him shower downstairs were—at most—evidence of
negligence.
On appeal, Brown does not directly address the video, but he now contends that
Silva was “rushing” and “pushing” him, describing Silva as an “aggressor.” He insists
that Silva created a serious risk to Brown by forcing him to take the stairs with his
hands cuffed behind him and showed deliberate indifference to the risk by rushing and
pushing him up the stairs. We review summary judgment decisions de novo. Balle v.
Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 553 (7th Cir. 2023). And although we generally draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, we will not adopt that party’s
version of the facts when it is “blatantly contradicted by the record.” Scott v. Harris,
550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Because we have a video recording of the incident, and Brown
does not develop an argument that it was doctored or fails to show pertinent details, we
instead view the facts in “the light depicted by the videotape.” Jones v. Anderson,
116 F.4th 669, 677 (7th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).
For his deliberate indifference claim to survive summary judgment, Brown had
to submit evidence from which a reasonable jury could find both that the complained-of
condition posed an excessive risk to Brown’s health and safety and that Silva knew of,
yet disregarded, the risk. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994); Stockton v.
Milwaukee Cnty., 44 F.4th 605, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2022). We assume for present purposes
that navigating stairs with his hands cuffed behind presented an excessive risk to
Brown’s health and safety, given his difficulty walking and documented history of falls.
We also credit Brown’s sworn statement that Silva was aware of these mobility
difficulties.
But Brown’s claim falters when it comes to proving that Silva consciously
disregarded the risk. An official is not liable for deliberate indifference to a known risk
if he takes steps to abate that risk. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844–45; Balsewicz v. Pawlyk,
963 F.3d 650, 655 (7th Cir. 2020). This is so even if the harm is not averted. Farmer, 511
U.S. at 844–45. Silva’s careful efforts to assist Brown up the stairs demonstrate an
attempt to lessen the risk of harm to Brown and thus preclude a finding that Silva acted
with deliberate indifference. See Balle, 73 F.4th at 558 (citing Bagola v. Kindt, 131 F.3d 632,
646 (7th Cir. 1997)). Indeed, it would be difficult to infer even negligence on Silva’s part.
The video establishes that, contrary to Brown’s assertions, Silva did not push or rush
Brown; instead, Silva tightly held Brown by the arm and walked very slowly with him
up the stairs. The video also shows that the direct cause of Brown’s fall was his foot

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 24-1670 Page 4
slipping on the top step—a simple accident. Accidents are not Eighth Amendment
violations. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --