Arthur Gene Simmons, Jr. v. Gundersen Health System

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 4, 2026*
Decided August 5, 2026
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1826
ARTHUR GENE SIMMONS, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GUNDERSEN HEALTH SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-383-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Arthur Simmons, a Wisconsin prisoner, fell during an off-site medical visit when
his leg restraints got caught in a medical examination chair. Simmons sued the
correctional officers who accompanied him on the visit, the prison warden, and the
* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating on appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument
because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral
argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED. R. APP . 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 25-1826 Page 2
medical clinic where he received care alleging that they violated his rights under the
Eighth Amendment by failing to prevent the fall. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district judge
dismissed the complaint at screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We affirm.
We accept as true all factual allegations in Simmons’s complaint. See Guerrero v.
Howard Bank, 74 F.4th 816, 819 (7th Cir. 2023). Simmons, a prisoner at Stanley
Correctional Institution, has limited eyesight and mobility and uses a cane to walk.
Transport Officer Severson and Correctional Officer Keefer accompanied Simmons on a
medical visit to the Gundersen Eye Clinic. Keefer told Simmons not to bring his cane. At
the clinic Simmons sat in a medical examination chair for an eye exam. He wore leg
restraints. When the examination concluded, Keefer put handcuffs and a black box
security device on Simmons’s wrists. Simmons tried to stand up from the chair, but the
leg restraints became tangled and he fell. While Simmons was falling, Severson pushed
him to prevent his head from hitting the doorframe. According to Simmons, the push
made the impact of the fall worse, and he hit his right elbow on the floor. Severson and
Keefer took Simmons to the emergency room where doctors treated him for extensive
bruising to his right arm.
Simmons sued Severson, Keefer, the prison warden, Gundersen Health System,
and the Gundersen Eye Clinic alleging that they violated his rights under the Eighth
Amendment when they failed to prevent his fall. Simmons alleged that Keefer should
have allowed him to take his cane to the medical visit and that Keefer and Severson
should have done more to help him off the examination chair. Simmons also alleged
that the Gundersen defendants failed to provide a safe environment and did not warn
him of the risk that his leg restraints might become entangled in the chair.
The district judge screened and dismissed the claims. As to the warden, the
district judge concluded that Simmons did not allege that he had any involvement in
the incident. The court also dismissed the claims against Severson and Keefer,
determining that the failure to prevent Simmons’s fall did not state a claim of deliberate
indifference. The court found that Simmons’s complaint alleged, at most, negligence.
Likewise, the court dismissed the claims against Gundersen Health System and Eye
Clinic, reasoning that Simmons’s allegations amounted only to negligence.
On appeal Simmons argues that he adequately alleged a claim that Keefer and
Severson acted with deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. He argues
that Keefer and Severson knew about his vision and mobility issues but did not allow

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1826 Page 3
him to bring his cane to the medical appointment or properly assist him from the
medical chair. Simmons also reiterates that Severson’s push made his fall worse.
But we agree with the judge that Simmons’s allegations are consistent only with
negligence. To state a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment
against Keefer and Severson, Simmons’s allegations must plausibly support a finding
that the officers consciously and deliberately ignored a serious risk of harm. See Farmer
v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 839–40 (1994); Balle v. Kennedy, 73 F.4th 545, 552–53 (7th Cir.
2023). Deliberate indifference “is more than negligence and approaches intentional
wrongdoing.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting Collignon v.
Milwaukee County, 163 F.3d 982, 988 (7th Cir. 1998)).
By Simmons’s own admission, his leg restraints becoming entangled in the
examination chair—not forgoing his cane or his underlying impairments—caused him
to fall. While Simmons argues that the officers could have acted with greater care in
assisting him from the chair, Simmons does not plausibly allege that the risk of falling
was so obvious that the officers must have known that he faced an “unreasonable
peril.” Anderson v. Morrison, 835 F.3d 681, 683 (7th Cir. 2016) (allegation that prisoner
was forced to walk with hands cuffed behind back down wet stairs covered in “obstacle
course” of debris states claim under Eighth Amendment). Moreover, Simmons admits
that Severson pushed him to protect him from hitting his head. Although Severson’s
actions may have exacerbated Simmons’s elbow injury, they do not support a finding
that Severson acted with a total unconcern for Simmons’s welfare. Because Simmons’s
allegations against Keefer and Severson could not support a finding of deliberate
indifference as opposed to negligence, the judge properly dismissed those claims.
Simmons also argues that the judge improperly dismissed his claims against
Gundersen Health System and Eye Clinic. He points to his allegation that they failed to
post signs warning of the risk that leg restraints may become entangled in an
examination chair. But we agree with the district judge that this allegation could not
support a finding that Gundersen acted with a conscious disregard to a serious risk of
harm rather than negligence.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --