DAVID D. DeBAUCHE v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2023 *
Decided July 11, 2023
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
No. 21-1784
DAVID D. DeBAUCHE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 3:17-cv-00454-wmc
William M. Conley,
Judge.
O R D E R
David DeBauche, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for violating his First Amendment rights by restricting his access to legal
materials in retaliation for a prior lawsuit. The district court screened DeBauche’s
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
the 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 21-1784 Page 2
complaint and dismissed it for failing to state a claim of either retaliation or denial of
access to courts. We affirm.
The factual background to this case is somewhat complicated. (Because
defendants moved to dismiss on the pleadings, we accept the factual allegations in
DeBauche’s operative complaint as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor.
Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 994 (7th Cir. 2020).) In a suit filed in 2013, DeBauche
alleged that he was targeted for retaliation after he sought a restraining order against a
correctional officer at Columbia Correctional Institute in Portage, Wisconsin. Three
months later, he was placed in disciplinary segregation based on what he describes as a
false conduct report. DeBauche does not say what role the defendants had in this
decision, but he asserts that his placement in segregation isolated him from other
inmates who might have helped him with his lawsuits and restricted his access to the
prison’s law library. His access to the library was further curtailed first by lockdowns in
2015 and later by a prison-wide policy that substantially reduced the time any inmate
could spend in the library. DeBauche asserted further that prison staff members
destroyed his legal materials after a cell move in 2014. They destroyed additional legal
materials six more times after cell searches in 2016—actions, he says, that led to his 2013
case being dismissed.
In the summer of 2017, DeBauche brought two separate suits under § 1983
against dozens of prison officials alleging a multitude of constitutional violations. In the
first complaint, which focused on his administrative confinement, he asserted that
officials retaliated against him for his 2013 lawsuit, in violation of his First Amendment
rights, and that this retaliation restricted his ability to obtain access to the courts. The
second complaint dealt primarily with his medical care at the prison.
The district court screened both complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. It
determined that they outlined at least 20 unrelated claims, opined that the complaints
were too “unwieldy to proceed,” and dismissed both without prejudice under Rule 20
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court instructed DeBauche that any
amended complaint must be narrowed to focus on one set of related claims and
defendants if he wished to proceed.
DeBauche, however, amended his complaint by adding more claims. The district
court, in turn, dismissed the amended complaint under Rule 20 and entered judgment
against him.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 21-1784 Page 3
DeBauche then moved for reconsideration, stating that prison lockdowns and his
placement in segregation had deprived him of access to reference materials he needed
to litigate his case. He included a second amended complaint that highlighted his First
Amendment retaliation and access-to-courts claims.
The district court accepted DeBauche’s second amended complaint but
dismissed it for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). With regard to
DeBauche’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the court concluded that the complaint
failed to allege that the defendants knew of his 2013 lawsuit or limited his library access
because of that suit, and it was not reasonable to infer that any institution-wide
restrictions were intended to punish him. As for DeBauche’s access-to-courts claim, the
court determined that he did not allege with any particularity how the prison officials
impeded his ability to litigate his 2013 suit during the relevant period. Indeed, the court
noted that DeBauche—while in segregation—had been able in those proceedings to
respond to a summary judgment motion and pursue a summary judgment motion of
his own.
On appeal, DeBauche reiterates that his 2013 lawsuit motivated the defendants to
retaliate against him. In support, he emphasizes that the restrictions on his ability to
access legal materials did not begin until after he filed the 2013 lawsuit.
The district court appropriately concluded that DeBauche did not state a claim of
retaliation under the First Amendment. To state such a claim, DeBauche had to allege
plausibly that he engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment, that he
suffered some deprivation that would deter future First Amendment activity, and that
his protected conduct motivated the prison officials’ decision to retaliate. 145 Fisk, LLC
v. Nicklas, 986 F.3d 759, 766 (7th Cir. 2021). Even if we assume that DeBauche
adequately pleaded the first two elements, he failed to allege a plausible causal link
between his lawsuit and the alleged retaliation. DeBauche did not say when any named
defendant knew of the 2013 suit or what role any of them played in the decision to place
him in segregation. Likewise, DeBauche’s allegations that his legal materials were
destroyed years later by non-defendant prison staff members do not allow for a
reasonable inference that the destruction was intended to punish DeBauche for his 2013
lawsuit. And we agree with the district court that Debauche’s allegations of prison-wide
restrictions do not support an inference that those restrictions were intended to punish
DeBauche. He does not allege that he was affected differently from other prisoners, and
the gaps between his 2013 lawsuit and the 2015 lockdown or 2017 library-use policy do
not support an inference of causation from timing alone. See Carlson v. CSX Transp., Inc.,

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 21-1784 Page 4
758 F.3d 819, 828 (7th Cir. 2014). Because DeBauche has not alleged facts that could
permit a reasonable inference that defendant prison officials retaliated against him, this
claim was properly dismissed.
Next, DeBauche introduces a new argument on appeal relating to the standing of
jailhouse lawyers to assert fellow inmates’ access-to-courts claims. But he waived this
access-to-courts argument by failing to raise it first in the district court. See Johnson v.
Prentice, 29 F.4th 895, 903 (7th Cir. 2022). Moreover, his brief does not engage with the
district court’s reasoning. See Klein v. O'Brien, 884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018).
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --