Calvin D. Lee v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-1945
C ALVIN D. LEE ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MILWAUKEE C OUNTY, WISCONSIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 2:22-cv-01089 — William E. Duffin, Magistrate Judge.
____________________
A RGUED MARCH 3, 2026 — D ECIDED MAY 7, 2026
____________________
Before R OVNER , SCUDDER , and KOLAR , Circuit Judges.
KOLAR , Circuit Judge. Calvin Lee filed a pro se lawsuit
against Milwaukee County for allegedly unconstitutional
conditions of confinement that he experienced while detained
for two and a half years in the County’s Jail. The district court
granted summary judgment to the County, and Lee—now
represented by counsel—appeals.

-- 1 of 16 --

2 No. 24-1945
Lee’s allegations are troubling: in particular, his descrip-
tions of potential gaps in the Jail’s mental-health resources
give us pause. His medical conditions, a traumatic brain in-
jury and post-traumatic stress disorder, are serious enough to
mandate some level of care under the Fourteenth Amend-
ment. And the County’s attempt to insulate itself from liabil-
ity by claiming that it lacked notice of any deficient care pro-
vided by its private contractor is a non-starter.
But on the sparse record before us, we cannot conclude
that any of Lee’s claims rise to the level of a constitutional vi-
olation. The little evidence available on the scope of Lee’s
mental-health needs does not raise a triable issue of fact as to
whether the limited care the Jail did offer him was constitu-
tionally insufficient. Though we sympathize with the chal-
lenges Lee undoubtedly faced in mustering this evidence
while litigating the case pro se below, we find he failed to meet
his burden at summary judgment. Thus, we affirm.
I. Background
A. Factual Background
We take the following facts from the summary judgment
record, drawing all reasonable inferences in Lee’s favor as the
nonmovant. Stockton v. Milwaukee County, 44 F.4th 605, 614
(7th Cir. 2022). Like the magistrate judge,1 we construe his pro
se filings below liberally and review the signed and sworn al-
legations in his amended complaint as an affidavit for sum-
mary judgment purposes. Beal v. Beller, 847 F.3d 897, 901–02
(7th Cir. 2017).
1 Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin presided over the case with the
parties’ consent.

-- 2 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 3
Lee was a pretrial detainee at the Milwaukee County Jail
from December 2020 to April 2023. The County contracts with
Wellpath, LLC to provide routine medical services, including
mental-health care, at the Jail. When Lee was initially pro-
cessed at the Jail, he informed medical staff that he was a U.S.
Army veteran with a documented history of traumatic brain
injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, insomnia, de-
pression, headaches, and blackouts, as well as nerve pain. Lee
said that he was “actively being treated” for these conditions
before his detention. But the record yields few details about
what this prior treatment entailed and contains no evidence
that Lee was evaluated by a mental-health care professional
upon intake. In fact, the record contains none of Lee’s medical
records from either before or during his time at the Jail.
Lee’s arrival came midway through the COVID-19 pan-
demic when the Jail was struggling to curb transmission of
the virus. As part of the Jail’s efforts to control the spread of
COVID-19, Lee and other detainees were regularly confined
to their cells for extended periods of time in alternating shifts;
Lee estimates these confinements could last as long as twenty-
six and a half hours. The County, for its part, admits some of
them lasted at least twenty-three hours. Lee also asserts that
while the Jail eventually ended its formal COVID “lock-in
policy,” it continued to impose extended lockdowns through-
out his incarceration, and that some lockdowns lasted at least
forty-four hours. During some of these lockdowns, the Jail
disabled toilets across entire cell blocks—a response, in the
County’s telling, to detainees flooding their cells.
In September 2021, a little over eight months into his de-
tention, Lee filed a grievance complaining that the Jail had
failed to provide him with “veteran services [and] resources,”

-- 3 of 16 --

4 No. 24-1945
including “[m]ental [h]ealth resources.” Correctional staff re-
sponded that the facility could not provide volunteer veteran
services at that time, but that Lee should fill out a slip to re-
quest mental-health services, and closed Lee’s grievance. Lee
appealed, asserting he had already “requested mental health
services, with no success” and that the facility was “ill
equipped” to treat his specific combat-related issues. The ap-
peal was forwarded to Wellpath staff, who informed Lee that
they could not provide him with medication under the Jail’s
general policies, since his medical records from the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) did not reflect any recent ac-
tive prescriptions. Wellpath listed the Jail’s available mental-
health services as “crisis intervention, brief counseling, medi-
cation management, [and] providing w[ri]tten materials to as-
sist with mental health issues,” but qualified that “[l]ong term
therapy is not provided, such as in a prison setting.”
Lee consistently filed grievances throughout his time at
the Jail. He continued to complain about inadequate mental-
health services, as well as treatment for his physical nerve
pain. While it appears the Jail provided Lee with medication
for his nerve pain, the record is ambiguous on what (if any)
mental-health care he received. At some point after Lee had
been confined for over a year, he went on a four-day hunger
strike and was placed on suicide observation, during which
he spoke with a staff psychiatrist. Beyond this, it is unclear
what level of mental-health treatment Lee received at the Jail.
Lee also protested the recurring lockdowns in his griev-
ances. And he called out a number of unhygienic conditions
that he observed at the Jail, including fecal matter left in a
broom closet, blood draws being conducted near food-service
areas, clogged sinks in cells, and black mold in showers. Jail

-- 4 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 5
staff responded to his grievances saying that these issues ei-
ther would be or had already been addressed.
B. Procedural History
Lee filed a lawsuit pro se against the County2 in September
2022 while still detained at the Jail. He never moved for ap-
pointment of counsel. The district court screened his com-
plaint and allowed him to proceed on several claims against
the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequate medical
treatment and unconstitutional conditions of confinement.
After the parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate
judge, the County moved for summary judgment on all of
Lee’s remaining claims.
In May 2024, the magistrate judge granted the County’s
motion and dismissed Lee’s case in its entirety. The magis-
trate judge held that Lee had failed to raise a triable issue as
to whether the Jail’s COVID-related lockdown policies were
unconstitutionally excessive. He likewise found none of Lee’s
cited unhygienic conditions objectively serious enough to
raise constitutional concerns—let alone pervasive enough to
2 Lee’s original complaint named both the County and Wellpath as
defendants. The district court ordered him to refile his claims against
Wellpath separately. Lee did so, and Wellpath moved for summary judg-
ment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, which the dis-
trict court granted. Lee then separately appealed this dismissal. While we
initially consolidated the two appeals for briefing and argument, we later
deconsolidated and stayed the Wellpath appeal after Wellpath filed for
bankruptcy. Lee has since notified the court of his intent to resume brief-
ing his appeal against Wellpath with the contractor’s Liquidating Trust
substituted as defendant, but has yet to file a motion to that effect. Since
exhaustion is not at issue in Lee’s case against the County, we do not ad-
dress it further.

-- 5 of 16 --

6 No. 24-1945
show a widespread pattern or practice that could be at-
tributed to the County under Monell v. Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). And as to Lee’s medical-care
claim, he found no indication that Wellpath’s treatment was
objectively unreasonable, that any deficiency was formal or
pervasive enough to create Monell liability, or that the County
was on notice of any issues with Wellpath’s care.
Lee appealed. After reviewing the parties’ initial submis-
sions, we determined that his case would benefit from further
briefing and argument and appointed counsel to represent
him before us. We thank appointed counsel for their able ser-
vice on Lee’s behalf.
II. Discussion
We review the magistrate judge’s grant of summary judg-
ment de novo. Stockton, 44 F.4th at 614. Summary judgment is
appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any ma-
terial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). But summary judgment is not
appropriate where “the evidence is such that a reasonable
jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Stock-
ton, 44 F.4th at 614 (citation omitted). “A party who fails to
produce evidence sufficient to establish an element essential
to that party’s case on which they bear the burden of proof
cannot survive a summary judgment challenge.” Id. The non-
moving party must “respond to the moving party’s properly-
supported motion by identifying specific, admissible evi-
dence showing that there is a genuine dispute of material fact
for trial.” Grant v. Trustees of Indiana University, 870 F.3d 562,
568 (7th Cir. 2017).

-- 6 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 7
Lee’s constitutional claims from his time as a pretrial de-
tainee arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816, 821–22 (7th Cir.
2019). To overcome the County’s motion, he must first raise a
triable issue as to whether the conditions he experienced at
the Jail were objectively unreasonable. Id. at 823–24. Condi-
tions are objectively unreasonable if they are imposed ex-
pressly to punish or are excessive in relation to a legitimate
purpose. Id. at 822; Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979).
Since all of Lee’s claims are brought against the County,
he has several additional hurdles to clear under Monell, which
requires § 1983 liability against local governments to be direct
and not vicarious. At a high level, and without reciting all of
Monell’s many nuances, Lee must:
(1) show that he was “deprived of a federal right”;
(2) “trace the deprivation to some municipal action (i.e., a
policy or custom) … attributable to the municipality it-
self”;
(3) show “municipal fault”; and
(4) show that “the municipal action was the moving force
behind the federal-rights violation.”
Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214, 235 (7th Cir.
2021) (cleaned up).
With these standards in mind, we turn to Lee’s appeal. We
first assess his claim relating to inadequate medical care, then
his claim based on excessive lockdowns, and finally his claim
over the Jail’s unhygienic conditions.
A. Medical-Care Claim
Lee’s claim of systemically unconstitutional gaps in the
Jail’s medical care presents the most challenging issue in this

-- 7 of 16 --

8 No. 24-1945
case. We begin by touching on the County’s defense of inad-
equate notice, before moving to the merits of Lee’s constitu-
tional claim.
In its brief on appeal, the County argued that Lee had
failed to show the County was properly on “notice that in-
mates requiring more or different care were not receiving it”
from Wellpath. The County contended that—even if Lee
could show that the care he received was unconstitutional—
he had failed to establish, under Monell’s “municipal fault”
prong, that County policymakers were “aware of the risk cre-
ated by [Wellpath’s] custom or practice and … failed to take
appropriate steps to protect [him].” Thomas v. Cook County
Sheriff's Dep’t, 604 F.3d 293, 303 (7th Cir. 2010). All of Lee’s
medical-related grievances, the County pointed out, were for-
warded directly to Wellpath staff. And it argued that Lee had
not identified any “pattern of similar violations” tending to
suggest the County’s awareness and “conscious disregard” of
any problem with Wellpath’s services. See Dean, 18 F.4th at
236 (citing Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 408
(1997)). Thus, in the County’s view, it could not have been “on
notice that [Wellpath’s] medical policies were causing serious
problems at the jail.” Hahn v. Walsh, 762 F.3d 617, 638 (7th Cir.
2014).
We take no issue with the County’s recitation of Monell’s
basic notice requirement. Its efforts to use that requirement to
insulate itself from liability through a private contractor is an-
other story, one with more than a few troubling chapters. Un-
der the settled law of our circuit, “[t]he County cannot shield
itself from § 1983 liability by contracting out its duty to pro-
vide medical services.” King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013, 1020
(7th Cir. 2012). The County’s efforts to reargue this

-- 8 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 9
established point of law by invoking respondeat superior do not
hold water. “The underlying rationale,” we noted in King, “is
not based on respondeat superior, but rather on the fact that the
private company’s policy becomes that of the County if the
County delegates final decision-making authority to it.” Id.
To this end, Lee need not—as the County argues—show a
widespread pattern of issues with Wellpath’s care to prove
that the County was on notice of any constitutional violations.
If Wellpath had an express policy of refusing to treat prison-
ers’ cardiac arrests, for example, that is enough to establish
the County’s municipal fault whether or not Wellpath ever
disclosed that policy to County officials. True, a plaintiff must
still establish that their deprivation of rights was either formal
or pervasive enough to constitute “municipal action” rather
than an individual employee’s isolated act. Dean, 18 F.4th at 235.
And they must show that the action was taken with the req-
uisite level of fault at a “policymaking level.” Id. at 236 (cita-
tion omitted). But if they met their burden on these elements
with evidence of Wellpath’s policies or practices, those ac-
tions are properly attributable to the County, which does not
contend that the scope of its delegation to Wellpath is any-
thing less than absolute. See, e.g., Thomas, 604 F.3d at 303 (rec-
ognizing county’s potential Monell liability based on contrac-
tor’s practices).
The County appeared to walk back its position at oral ar-
gument, acknowledging that Wellpath’s policies are treated
as the County’s based on the breadth of its delegated author-
ity. It was wise to do so: its initial position not only contra-
venes King, but would incentivize municipalities to shirk their
constitutional obligations by sticking their heads in the sand.
That is not our law.

-- 9 of 16 --

10 No. 24-1945
With the County’s notice argument disposed of, we turn
to the first and most basic element in Lee’s Monell claim:
whether he suffered a constitutional injury. To satisfy this el-
ement, as a pretrial detainee, he must first show that the care
he received was objectively unreasonable—that is, insuffi-
cient to abate a “serious risk of harm” from a reasonable of-
ficer’s perspective. Pittman ex rel. Hamilton v. Madison County,
108 F.4th 561, 571–72 (7th Cir. 2024) (“Pittman IV”) (citation
omitted). Second, Lee must show that he was harmed as a re-
sult. Miranda v. County of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 347 (7th Cir. 2018).
Under this standard, Lee’s physical ailments—such as
nerve pain—merit only brief discussion. Even if Lee could es-
tablish that these symptoms were objectively serious (which
is not clear on this limited record), the County took affirma-
tive steps in response by offering him injections of pain-man-
agement medication. Lee offers no evidence to suggest this
course of treatment caused him unnecessary suffering. We
agree with the magistrate judge that no reasonable jury could
find Wellpath’s actions on this front constitutionally deficient.
Lee’s mental-health issues merit closer scrutiny. He avers
that he has a documented history of traumatic brain injury
and PTSD and was actively treated for these conditions at
some point before entering the Jail. These conditions could
certainly rise to the level of an “objectively serious” medical
need for which at least some degree of treatment was neces-
sary to avoid a substantial risk of harm. Id. at 346–47 (evalu-
ating claim for failure to treat suicidal detainee’s serious men-
tal-health issues); Pittman IV, 108 F.4th at 566 (same); cf. San-
ville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 734 (7th Cir. 2001) (recogniz-
ing “mental illness” can be a “serious medical need” under
the Eighth Amendment). And the County does not dispute

-- 10 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 11
that Wellpath’s staff were aware of Lee’s conditions: Lee dis-
closed them upon intake, and Wellpath later notified him that
it had received his prior medical history from the VA.
The problem is that Lee has not put forth any clinical evi-
dence that would allow us to assess whether the mental-
health care options the County did provide were objectively
insufficient to meet his serious needs. It is clear enough that
he himself found Wellpath’s suite of available services—“cri-
sis intervention, brief counseling, [and] medication manage-
ment,” but not “long term therapy”—inadequate to treat his
combat-related issues. But the record contains precious little
information on the scope and severity of his conditions, what
treatment he was receiving before he arrived at the Jail, and
whether and how Wellpath evaluated his neurological and
psychiatric symptoms once he got there. Without this infor-
mation, we have no principled basis to conclude that the treat-
ment Wellpath offered him was objectively unreasonable. Cf.
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting, in
the context of the Eighth Amendment, that “an inmate is not
entitled to demand specific care,” but only to “reasonable
measures to meet a substantial risk of serious harm”).
We understand the difficult burden Lee faces on this issue:
he litigated the case pro se below and lacked access to the
kinds of evidentiary tools, such as expert testimony, that
could help define the precise contours of his mental-health
needs. See James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320, 328 (7th Cir. 2018) (noting
that “cases involving complex medical evidence are typically
more difficult for pro se litigants” who have “received at least
some treatment” (cleaned up)); Pennewell v. Parish, 923 F.3d
486, 491 (7th Cir. 2019) (describing the “untenable and ab-
struse position” an inmate faced in “unearthing evidence that

-- 11 of 16 --

12 No. 24-1945
a substantial departure from accepted medical standards oc-
curred”). In acknowledging the barriers Lee faced as a pro se
litigant, we do not mean to imply that expert testimony or
other clinical evidence is per se necessary for incarcerated
plaintiffs’ medical-care claims to withstand summary judg-
ment. See, e.g., Jackson v. Sheriff of Winnebago County, 74 F.4th
496, 502 (7th Cir. 2023) (finding expert testimony unnecessary
to allow a jury to determine whether delay in medical care
diminished pretrial detainee’s chances of survival).
Nor do we discount the seriousness of any potential gaps
in the County’s mental-health services. Lee was incarcerated
at the Jail for over two and a half years. The record is ambig-
uous on whether the County, through Wellpath, in fact main-
tained a blanket policy of denying “long term therapy” for
pretrial detainees regardless of a detainee’s objectively estab-
lished need for such care. But such a policy, were it in place,
could raise constitutional concerns. See Wellman v. Faulkner,
715 F.2d 269, 272–73 (7th Cir. 1983) (describing two-year va-
cancy in prison’s staff psychiatrist position as a “serious sys-
temic deficiency”).
Here, however, we need not (and do not) reach Monell’s
“policy” inquiry, since we conclude on the record before us
that Lee’s claim ultimately founders at the initial step of
showing an underlying constitutional violation. Since Lee has
not put forth “specific, admissible evidence showing that
there is a genuine dispute of material fact for trial” on whether
the medical care he received at the Jail was objectively unrea-
sonable, he has failed to meet his burden at summary judg-
ment. Grant, 870 F.3d at 568. Even if Wellpath’s long-term
therapy policy is read to set the stage for a constitutional vio-
lation, we lack a sufficient basis to conclude that one may

-- 12 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 13
have occurred here. Thus, we must affirm the magistrate
judge’s grant of summary judgment on Lee’s medical-care
claim.
B. Excessive-Lockdown Claim
Lee’s other claims stem from conditions that are far from
ideal, but again do not rise to the level of a constitutional vio-
lation. We turn next to his challenges to the Jail’s lockdown
policies.
A pretrial detainee has “no general liberty interest in
movement outside of his cell guaranteed by the Due Process
Clause.” Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430 (7th Cir. 1996).
Lockdowns only transgress the Fourteenth Amendment
when they become punitive, i.e. when they are not “reasona-
bly related to a legitimate governmental objective” or are “ex-
cessive in relation” to that objective. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538–39.
On this record, a reasonable jury could not conclude that
the Jail’s lockdowns during Lee’s incarceration were uncon-
stitutionally excessive. The Jail had a legitimate interest in
protecting its detainees during the pandemic by reducing
transmission of the COVID-19 virus, and we are ill-equipped
to second-guess whether its resulting lockdown policies were
adequately tailored to that interest. See Mays v. Dart, 974 F.3d
810, 819–21 (7th Cir. 2020). Lee identifies alternative steps the
Jail could have taken, such as allowing inmates out of their
cells more frequently in smaller rotating groups or relocating
inmates to decompress the Jail’s population. But Jail adminis-
trators were caught in the unenviable position of facing suits
from some inmates for failing to adequately protect them
from COVID-19, on one hand, and suits from inmates like Lee
for implementing allegedly excessive restrictions, on the

-- 13 of 16 --

14 No. 24-1945
other. While Lee’s proposals might have benefited the Jail’s
inmates in retrospect, the Fourteenth Amendment’s require-
ments should not be confused with “a court’s idea of how best
to operate a detention facility.”3 Bell, 441 U.S. at 539.
Lee also points to certain lockdowns from mid-2021 on-
ward that were not clearly related to COVID safety concerns.
But his complaint and grievances only reference a handful of
lockdowns that fall into this camp. Even if Lee could show
that these instances were overtly punitive or excessive to the
point of punishment, he has failed to either tie them to an ex-
press policy or show that they were sufficiently pervasive to
constitute a de facto practice for Monell purposes. A “random
event” or isolated series of events does not amount to a
“widespread custom or practice” under Monell. Thomas, 604
F.3d at 303. We therefore affirm the magistrate judge’s judg-
ment on Lee’s excessive-lockdown claim.
C. Unsanitary-Conditions Claim
Lee has also failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the
Jail’s unsanitary conditions deprived him of a constitutional
right. Broadly, Lee attacks a host of different unhygienic inci-
dents at the Jail, including fecal matter left in a broom closet
for multiple weeks, “food being served in the same area that
blood labs were being drawn,” a clogged sink in Lee’s cell,
3 Lee alternatively challenges the lockdowns as excessively restricting
his ability to exercise. See, e.g., Lock v. Jenkins, 641 F.2d 488, 493 (7th Cir.
1981) (recognizing due-process violation where inmates were confined to
small cells “for the overwhelming portion of their waking and sleeping
hours”). While we do not question the importance of inmates’ access to
exercise, none of the cases Lee cites addressed the countervailing safety
interests implicated by the “unprecedented” COVID-19 pandemic. Mays,
974 F.3d at 814.

-- 14 of 16 --

No. 24-1945 15
and black mold in showers. Jail officials have a duty to ensure
that inmates are afforded “the minimum civilized measure of
life’s necessities, including adequate sanitation and personal
hygiene items.” Budd v. Motley, 711 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir.
2013) (per curiam) (cleaned up). While individual substandard
conditions are not always “serious enough to work constitu-
tional violations,” they may “violate the Constitution in com-
bination when they have a ‘mutually enforcing effect that pro-
duces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need.’”
Id. at 842–43 (quoting Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 304 (1991)).
Lee’s unsanitary-conditions claim, too, fails under multi-
ple prongs of Monell. His grievances do not isolate a single
issue or recurring pattern of issues, but rather a grab-bag of
different complaints—all occurring while Jail resources were
taxed during the COVID-19 pandemic and its immediate af-
termath. These incidents are “certainly unpleasant,” and the
County “deserves no praise for permitting them to persist.”
Sain v. Wood, 512 F.3d 886, 894 (7th Cir. 2008). But in this con-
text, we lack sufficient evidence to infer either that they man-
ifested a “single, identifiable” deprivation or are traceable to
a widespread practice of constitutionally unacceptable
maintenance. Budd, 711 F.3d at 843 (citation omitted).
Jail staff typically responded within a week indicating
that Lee’s complaints would be or had already been ad-
dressed. Sain, 512 F.3d at 894 (finding inmate’s pest com-
plaints insufficiently serious where “an exterminator regu-
larly visited his cell … and also would come in response to
[his] complaints”). Even inferring in Lee’s favor that staff
never actually followed through on these promises, the record
lacks evidence that most of his specific complaints ever re-
curred. Cf. Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1431 (reversing dismissal at

-- 15 of 16 --

16 No. 24-1945
pleading stage where inmate described sixteen-month pest
infestation); Budd, 711 F.3d at 842 (reversing dismissal at
screening stage where inmate alleged repeated stays in facil-
ity without adequate bedding or functioning heat over multi-
ple years).
The closest Lee comes to identifying a systemic pattern of
unhygienic conditions is the Jail’s apparent practice of shut-
ting off toilets in entire cell blocks for prolonged periods of
time, forcing inmates to live with their own waste. The
County’s summary-judgment response explains these
shutoffs as an emergency response to other inmates flooding
their cells during the COVID-19 pandemic. The cell-block-
wide shutoffs were evidently a function of the Jail’s plumbing
system, which does not permit more targeted shutoffs to in-
dividual cells. While the toilet shutoffs are unsanitary and un-
savory, and might on a different record cross the line into an
unconstitutional practice, the Jail has put forth a legitimate
justification for their necessity in the specific case before us.
We cannot reasonably conclude, without knowing more
about the circumstances, that they constituted excessive pun-
ishment. Bell, 441 U.S. at 538–39; cf. Hardeman, 933 F.3d at 819,
824–25 (affirming qualified-immunity denial at pleading
stage where jail administrators shut off water without fore-
warning inmates as part of planned shutdown to fix water
tank, and punished inmates who complained with lock-
downs).
III. Conclusion
We AFFIRM.

-- 16 of 16 --