Clarence Britten v. ANTHONY WILLS and CARRI MORRIS

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 12, 2025*
Decided June 13, 2025
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1547
CLARENCE BRITTEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY WILLS and CARRI
MORRIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 22-CV-409-SMY
Staci M. Yandle,
Judge.
O R D E R
Clarence Britten, an Illinois prisoner, appeals the summary judgment rejecting
his claim that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs.
We affirm.
* Defendant Sherri Buettner has notified us that she will not be filing a brief in
this appeal. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 24-1547 Page 2
We construe the record in favor of Britten, the nonmovant. See Jackson v. Esser,
105 F.4th 948, 961 (7th Cir. 2024). While housed at Menard Correctional Center, Britten
received treatment from psychiatrists and other medical professionals for diagnosed
mental health conditions. Every few weeks, psychiatrists met with him to review his
diagnoses, medications, and behaviors, and they frequently updated his treatment plan
based on their conversations. They also recommended that he attend group therapy and
other mental health programming. Carri Morris, a licensed clinical social worker who
reviewed the psychiatric-treatment plans for Menard’s prisoners, had no role in treating
Britten. She did not evaluate Britten’s condition, prescribe medication to him, or alter
his treatment plan.
From March to November 2021, Britten filed five grievances over the adequacy
of the mental health services he was receiving and asked to be transferred to Menard’s
residential treatment unit. The grievance counselor denied his grievances and stated
that Britten’s psychiatrists were providing appropriate treatment for his mental health
needs. The counselor also noted that Morris encouraged Britten to follow his
psychiatrists’ recommendation to attend group therapy.
Britten brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Morris, Warden Anthony
Wills, and Sherri Buettner (another mental health professional whom Britten later
voluntarily dismissed from the case). He asserted that Morris acted with deliberate
indifference to his mental health conditions, in violation of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment, when she provided him with inadequate care, allowed prison staff to
interfere with his treatment, and obstructed his attempts to receive a higher level of
care. Britten added Wills based on his supervisory role over Morris and the other
medical professionals.
Morris and Wills moved for summary judgment, and the district judge granted
the motion. The judge found that Britten supplied no evidence that the defendants were
deliberately indifferent to his mental health needs. Regarding Morris, the judge
explained, the evidence showed only that her job duties were circumscribed and that
she lacked the authority to order specific mental health treatment for Britten. As for
Wills, the record showed that his involvement was limited to reviewing Britten’s
grievances; he did not participate in matters concerning Britten’s treatment.
On appeal, Britten argues that the district judge overlooked key evidence from
his deposition and the defendants’ interrogatories—that Morris oversaw the psychiatric
staff; personally reviewed his treatment plan; and encouraged him to attend more
programming, in line with the psychiatrists’ recommendation. Britten maintains that

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-1547 Page 3
this evidence supports an inference that Morris knowingly allowed staff to continue
with inadequate care.
This evidence is not material. None of it calls into question the judge’s
determination that Morris was not involved in Britten’s individualized treatment.
Morris was entitled to defer to the treating psychiatrists’ judgment so long as that
deference was not “blind.” Reck v. Wexford Health Sources, 27 F.4th 473, 485 (7th Cir.
2022) (quotation omitted). Here, Morris reasonably deferred to the psychiatrists’ group
therapy recommendation. Britten does not point to any evidence in the record
suggesting that Morris ignored any ineffective care. And to the extent Britten disagrees
with the recommendation to attend more programming, opposition to a chosen course
of treatment is not enough to constitute deliberate indifference. See Thomas v. Martija,
991 F.3d 763, 772 (7th Cir. 2021).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --