Littleton E. Jackson v. David Yang

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 16, 2026*
Decided June 16, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1973
LITTLETON E. JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID YANG, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-C-983
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Littleton Jackson sued prison officials at Green Bay Correctional Institution,
alleging that they conspired to feed him poisoned food for many years. He sought an
expansive sweep of videos monitoring the prison’s kitchen, and the district court
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 5 --

No. 25-1973 Page 2
denied his motions to compel and for sanctions before ultimately entering summary
judgment. We affirm the judgment.
Jackson alleges that he has been served poisoned food on dozens of occasions,
beginning March 1, 2022. On that date, according to Jackson, correctional officer David
Yang and another, unnamed officer distributed trays of breakfast meals to prisoners in
their cells in the restrictive housing unit. As the unnamed officer was preparing to hand
Jackson his breakfast, Yang ran toward the other officer, took that tray, handed it
instead to Jackson’s neighbor, and then gave Jackson a different tray. After eating this
breakfast, Jackson experienced chest and neck pain. When Jackson submitted a written
request to prison officials to preserve a video of this incident, they responded that the
video was preserved.
In September 2023, Jackson sued a bevy of prison officials, including Yang, as
well as the warden and former warden, several guards, and several complaint
examiners. He alleged that he was served poisoned food on seven specific occasions in
retaliation for his prior complaints and lawsuits, and that complaint examiners denied
his complaints and dismissed his appeals to prevent investigation into the poisonings.
The district court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined
that despite the allegations being unlikely, Jackson had stated claims of deliberate
indifference to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment, and of retaliation for protected speech, in violation of the First
Amendment. The court permitted Jackson to proceed against the officers whom he had
accused of providing him with poisoned food and against the complaint examiners
whom he accused of denying his complaints.
Jackson then filed an amended complaint with substantially the same allegations
but adding many more dates on which he alleged he was poisoned. The district court
again permitted Jackson to proceed on his claims.
Discovery was contentious. Jackson requested production of the video showing
the delivery of breakfast on March 1, 2022. Although officials had previously
represented that they had preserved that video, the defendants now responded that it
had not in fact been preserved, and instead they had mistakenly preserved video from
the delivery of dinner that day. Jackson also made much broader requests, including
requests for videos monitoring all ingredients used in the preparation of his food, from
the moment they entered the prison until they were cooked and delivered to him on 53
occasions, as well as videos monitoring the prison’s cookware, with no apparent time

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 25-1973 Page 3
limitation. The defendants objected that these requests were overly broad and unduly
burdensome.
Jackson then moved to compel production of these videos. He also moved for
sanctions, contending that the defendants lied that the video from the morning of
March 1, 2022, had not been preserved, and attaching the officials’ statement that it had
been. In response, the defendants maintained that his requests were overly broad but
noted that they had preserved 30 videos from dates he had requested. (Prison officials
allowed him to see several of those videos.) The defendants also denied that they had
lied about the video from the March 1 breakfast, again explaining that the dinner
delivery had been mistakenly preserved instead.
The district court denied Jackson’s motions. It agreed with the defendants that
the requests for videos of ingredients, cookware, and meal preparation and delivery
were overly broad and unduly burdensome relative to the likely benefit of reviewing
dozens of hours of footage. The court also denied Jackson’s motion for sanctions,
accepting the defendants’ explanation that only the March 1 dinner footage was
available.
The defendants then moved for summary judgment, asserting that Jackson had
no evidence that any defendant poisoned his food and that Jackson relied on mere
speculation that he had been poisoned based on his reported symptoms. Each
defendant provided a declaration attesting that he or she had not poisoned Jackson’s
food. And in reply to Jackson’s response, they provided records from Jackson’s visits to
the health-services unit. During some of those visits, Jackson complained of being
poisoned, but the health-service providers saw no symptoms of poisoning.
The district court agreed with the defendants and entered judgment. The court
concluded that Jackson could only speculate that he had been poisoned.
Jackson moved to amend the judgment, generally contesting the district court’s
conclusions. He also sought to rely on evidence that he had requested toxicology tests
from health services, and he contended that he could use his food as evidence at trial.
The court denied this motion, concluding that these requests could have been
introduced before judgment was entered. Meanwhile, after judgment, Jackson was
transferred from Green Bay to Waupun Correctional Institution.
On appeal, Jackson first argues that the district court erred in denying his motion
to compel production of videos monitoring the storage and preparation of his food. He

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 25-1973 Page 4
contends that because he could prove his claims only if he had a complete recording of
each of his meals being prepared and delivered, the requests were proportionate to the
needs of the case. We afford district courts broad discretion over discovery decisions,
reviewing only for abuse of discretion, which we will find only if the “ruling lacks a
basis in law or fact or clearly appears to be arbitrary.” Kuttner v. Zaruba, 819 F.3d 970,
974 (7th Cir. 2016).
The district court here did not abuse its broad discretion. A court may limit the
scope of discovery after considering factors including “whether the burden or expense
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” F ED. R. C IV. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the
court reasonably weighed the burden of Jackson’s request—seeking videos of all food
entering and being stored the prison, videos monitoring all of the prison’s cookware at
all hours, and videos of food being prepared for at least 53 meals—and concluded it
was drastically overbroad. He was not entitled to see the dozens of hours of footage he
requested for what he believed to be a few relevant seconds.
Jackson next challenges the denial of his request for sanctions. He maintains that
the defendants lied about the video from the morning of March 1, 2022, being
unavailable. He contends that his written notice requesting preservation of the video,
and prison officials’ response saying that the video had been preserved, entitled him to
an adverse inference when the video was not actually preserved and disclosed to him.
See F ED. R. C IV. P. 37(e)(2)(A).
An adverse inference is permitted only when the district court finds that the
opposing party destroyed evidence in bad faith for the purpose of hiding adverse
information. See id.; Downing v. Abbott Lab'ys, 48 F.4th 793, 812 (7th Cir. 2022). We
review the district court’s findings regarding bad faith for clear error. See Donelson v.
Hardy, 931 F.3d 565, 569 (7th Cir. 2019). A factual finding cannot be clearly erroneous if
it is “plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.” Cloutier v. GoJet Airlines,
LLC, 996 F.3d 426, 448–49 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 573–74 (1985)). Here, although Jackson offered evidence that would have
allowed an inference that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to preserve the
March 1 breakfast video, the court was entitled to accept defendants’ plausible
explanation that it was an innocent mistake that the dinner video was saved instead.
Jackson also generally argues that the court should not have entered summary
judgment for the defendants. He contends that Yang’s switching food trays on the
morning of March 1, 2022, and prison officials’ not promptly providing him toxicology
exams on his request would allow a jury to infer that defendants had poisoned him. But

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 25-1973 Page 5
we agree with the district court that Jackson offers only speculation to connect the
switched trays to his symptoms and those symptoms to poison. A plaintiff cannot
defeat summary judgment with “mere speculation or conjecture.” Weaver v. Champion
Petfoods USA Inc., 3 F.4th 927, 936 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Liu v. T&H Mach., Inc.,
191 F.3d 790, 796 (7th Cir. 1999)). That medical officials did not perform his requested
toxicology tests does not permit an inference that those tests would have shown he was
poisoned. See id. (failure to test allegedly contaminated pet food was not evidence of
contamination). And though Jackson insists that he could present his actual food as
evidence at trial, he has still not explained how he would demonstrate that the food was
poisoned.
Finally, Jackson argues that the district court should have permitted him to name
additional defendants, though the only potential parties he says he would seek to name
are Waupun Prison, where he asserts he is still being served poisoned food, and the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections. A prison is not a suable entity, see Smith v. Knox
Cnty. Jail, 666 F.3d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir. 2012), and the Department of Corrections is not a
person under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is otherwise immune from suit because it is a state
agency, see Thomas v. Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012). And to the extent Jackson
seeks to sue officials working at Waupun, he was transferred there after judgment was
entered, so any allegations concerning those officials arose after the judgment and do
not provide a basis to vacate that judgment.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --