Anjenai Bolden v. MICHAEL N. MEZO and JEFFREY L. STALLINS

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 11, 2023 *
Decided July 12, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
Nos. 22-1571 & 22-2481
ANJENAI BOLDEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL N. MEZO and JEFFREY L.
STALLINS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 18-cv-2197-DWD
David W. Dugan,
Judge.
O R D E R
Anjenai Bolden, an Illinois prisoner, told two prison guards that his cellmate
threatened to attack him. The cellmate never followed through, but Bolden sued the
guards for failing to protect him from the risk of an attack. The district court entered
summary judgment for the defendants for two reasons: It found that Bolden did not
exhaust his available administrative remedies and Bolden had not alleged an actual
injury. The second rationale is straightforward and correct; we thus affirm on that basis.
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Nos. 22-1571 & 22-2481 Page 2
In mid-February of 2018, Bolden was assigned to live with and help a blind and
wheelchair-bound inmate. Bolden’s cellmate did not want Bolden’s help, became
hostile, and threatened to attack Bolden. Bolden told two prison guards about the
threats. He alleges that they laughed at him, prompting him to file, on February 17, an
emergency grievance about their response. After that grievance went unanswered,
Bolden wrote to prison administrators, including a written appeal in May.
The cellmate made more threats and accusations but never attacked Bolden. Five
days after he filed his emergency grievance, the cellmate threatened to kill Bolden if
Bolden tried to help him. Bolden reported this threat to other officers, and they talked to
the cellmate to defuse tensions. The cellmate then accused Bolden of rape. Afterward,
officers removed Bolden from the joint cell and launched an investigation. While the
investigation was underway, the cellmate stole and damaged Bolden’s belongings.
After the investigation concluded, officials permanently moved Bolden to a different
cell. Bolden then filed an unsuccessful grievance complaining that the cellmate had
falsely accused him of rape and stolen his personal items.
Invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Bolden sued the two guards who left him with the
cellmate after he initially reported the cellmate’s threats. He contended that, by failing
to protect him from the risk of harm from a hostile cellmate, they violated his Eighth
Amendment rights. The district judge allowed this claim to proceed, but dismissed
others at screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and Bolden does not contest that dismissal. The
defendants then moved for summary judgment, arguing that Bolden had failed to
exhaust administrative remedies because he had not filed a grievance on February 17.
The judge held a Pavey hearing to resolve the dispute. See Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d 739,
742 (7th Cir. 2008). After a hearing, the judge entered summary judgment for the
defendants, giving two reasons. First, he ruled that “there is not sufficient evidence in
this case to show that Plaintiff ever filed a February 17 grievance.” Second, the judge
explained that Bolden failed to state a claim because he did not allege injury from the
defendants’ inaction. See Lord v. Beahm, 952 F.3d 902, 905 (7th Cir. 2020). Bolden then
unsuccessfully moved to alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e).
On appeal, Bolden argues only that the judge erred in concluding that he had
failed to exhaust. We review a judge’s legal rulings in a Pavey hearing de novo. Wallace
v. Baldwin, 55 F.4th 535, 541 (7th Cir. 2022). Here, the judge may have misallocated the
burden of proof to Bolden when he ruled that “there is not sufficient evidence in this
case to show that Plaintiff ever filed a February 17 grievance.” It is a defendant’s burden

-- 2 of 3 --

Nos. 22-1571 & 22-2481 Page 3
to prove that a prisoner did not file a grievance, see Pyles v. Nwaobasi, 829 F.3d 860, 869
(7th Cir. 2016), not the prisoner’s burden to prove that he did.
But summary judgment for the defendants was proper nonetheless. Bolden does
not address in his opening brief the judge’s ruling that, even if Bolden had exhausted
the failure-to-protect claim, he alleged no compensable injury and thus failed to state a
claim for relief. We may affirm on this ground because Bolden waived any challenge to
this alternative ruling. See Maher v. City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 817, 821 (7th Cir. 2008).
In any case, the ruling that Bolden lacks an alleged injury is correct. An injury is
necessary for a constitutional tort under § 1983. Lord, 952 F.3d at 905. But Bolden never
alleged that the cellmate physically harmed him. Moreover, he does not attribute to the
defendants his cellmate’s destruction of his property. (Nor could he; he alleges that the
loss occurred because other officials removed Bolden from their shared cell.) Finally, a
mere “failure to prevent exposure to risk of harm,” without more, is not an injury.
Babcock v. White, 102 F.3d 267, 272 (7th Cir. 1996). True, a prisoner who lacks a physical
injury might recover punitive or nominal damages if a defendant psychologically
injured him. See Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 614 (7th Cir. 2012). Bolden, however,
never alleged in his complaint that the defendants’ failure to remove him from his cell
inflicted psychological damage. We are mindful that he testified that he “felt stress”
living with the cellmate, but “[n]ot every psychological discomfort a prisoner endures
amounts to a constitutional violation.” Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir.
2003). And Bolden did not allege or testify that this vague “stress” resulted from the
defendants’ failure to address the cellmate’s threats.
Finally, for completeness, we address an argument contained in Bolden’s notice
of appeal but not his opening brief. Bolden contends that he should have been granted
leave to file an amended complaint that adequately alleged injury. But in his
postjudgment motion, Bolden never asked the judge for leave to file an amended
complaint to allege an injury from the events in February 2018. According to his
postjudgment motion, the allegations he wished to add to his complaint concerned an
unrelated claim about the loss of legal materials in late 2021—not anything relevant to
the events in February 2018. And on appeal, Bolden does not describe what facts about
2018 he would have included in an amended complaint. Because Bolden never asked to
amend his complaint to allege an injury about the relevant events, nor does he explain
on appeal how he would have done so, we will not disturb the judgment. See Haywood
v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, 887 F.3d 329, 335 (7th Cir. 2018).
We thus AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

-- 3 of 3 --