Ted Joseph Bruno v. Joel Shirek

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 22, 2025*
Decided December 22, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1542
TED JOSEPH BRUNO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOEL SHIREK, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-353-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
Ted Joseph Bruno, who is confined at Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in
Mauston, Wisconsin, suffered an injury when a transport van he was riding in stopped
abruptly to avoid hitting a deer. He sued, alleging that the officers transporting him
acted with deliberate indifference to his safety by failing to put a seatbelt on him in
* 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. FED . 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 25-1542 Page 2
violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district
court dismissed the complaint at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We affirm.
We accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true and view them in the
light most favorable to Bruno. See Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 994 (7th Cir. 2020). In
2023, Sargeant Sean Culver and Officer Dale Leonard were transporting Bruno to a
medical appointment. Bruno was shackled and had a restraint brace on his hands.
Leonard put Bruno in the back seat of the van and did not fasten his seatbelt. While
Culver was driving, a deer jumped in front of the van, and Culver slammed on the
brakes to avoid hitting it. Bruno flew out of his seat and into the metal security partition
separating the front of the van from the back. Bruno suffered a gash above his left eye
that required stitches and took weeks to heal. After the incident, he suffered from
constant back and neck aches.
Bruno sued Culver, Leonard, Joel Shirek (the director of Sand Ridge), and the
State of Wisconsin, alleging they violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment when
they failed to put a seatbelt on him. The district court dismissed the claims against
Shirek, concluding that Bruno did not allege that he had any involvement in the
incident, and against the State of Wisconsin, explaining that the state was not a person
under § 1983. The court also dismissed with prejudice the claims against Culver and
Leonard, determining that the failure to seatbelt a shackled inmate alone, without an
allegation that the defendants operated the vehicle recklessly, did not state a claim of
deliberate indifference. The court found that Bruno’s complaint alleged, at most,
negligence, so it dismissed the claim. The court noted, however, that the claim was
dismissed without prejudice to the extent that it could be construed as a state-law
negligence claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
On appeal, Bruno argues that he adequately alleged a claim that Culver and
Leonard acted with deliberate indifference to his rights under the Eighth Amendment
when they failed to fasten his seatbelt. To state a claim for deliberate indifference under
the Eighth Amendment against Culver and Leonard, Bruno’s allegations must plausibly
support a finding that the officers consciously and deliberately ignored a serious risk of
harm. Pyles v. Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 409 (7th Cir. 2014); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
839–40 (1994). But here, Bruno’s allegations are consistent only with negligence.
Compare Jabbar v. Fischer, 683 F.3d 54, 58–59 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that failure to
seatbelt shackled inmate alone fails to state a claim without allegation of intent to
punish or knowledge of excessive risk), with Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 409
(5th Cir. 2013) (holding that shackled prisoner without a seatbelt stated claim of

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1542 Page 3
deliberate indifference because he alleged that officer drove recklessly and knew there
had been many recent injuries related to failure to fasten inmates’ seatbelts). Bruno
alleges that Culver stopped the van to avoid a deer, and that Leonard had not fastened
Bruno’s seatbelt when putting him in the van. The incident report Bruno attaches to his
complaint shows that Culver was driving below the speed limit. And Bruno does not
allege that the officers were aware of any similar instances of injuries occurring where
inmates were not buckled. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837 (holding that defendant must
know of risk of harm and draw inference that plaintiff might be injured). Bruno’s
allegations could not support a finding of deliberate indifference, as opposed to
negligence. See id. at 835.
Bruno also challenges the dismissal of his claims against Director Shirek and the
State of Wisconsin. But the district court correctly dismissed the claim against the
director because Bruno had not alleged that the director was personally involved in the
incident. See Colbert v. City of Chicago, 851 F.3d 649, 657 (7th Cir. 2017). And the
dismissal of the claim against the State of Wisconsin also was proper because the state is
not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 71 (1989); de Lima Silva v. Dep’t of Corr., 917 F.3d 546, 565 n.15 (7th Cir. 2019).
Finally, for the first time on appeal, Bruno alleges that he received inadequate
post-accident medical care because he was not provided with sufficiently strong
painkillers and staff did not take photos of his injuries until three days after the
accident. But he did not include these allegations in his complaint, and we will not
consider them for the first time on appeal. Bradley v. Vill. of Univ. Park, 59 F.4th 887, 897
(7th Cir. 2023).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --