Bryon Champ v. Shirley Forcum

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 27, 2026*
Decided January 28, 2026
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 23-3022
BRYON CHAMP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHIRLEY FORCUM, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 3:19-CV-263-MAB
Mark A. Beatty,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Bryon Champ, formerly confined at a mental health facility as a pretrial detainee,
challenges the summary judgment rejecting his conditions-of-confinement claim against
the facility staff. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because Champ does not present any ground for
reversal, we dismiss this appeal.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is frivolous. FED .
R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-3022 Page 2
This appeal is the last in a series of civil rights suits filed by Champ when he was
confined at Chester Medical Health Center in 2018. In this suit, he alleged that the water
to his toilet was shut off for 55 days as punishment for failing to report his bowel
movements to staff, in accordance with facility policy. The district court allowed him to
proceed under the Fourteenth Amendment on a claim that he was subjected to
unconstitutional conditions of confinement. The court recruited successive attorneys to
assist Champ. After the second attorney (who had assisted Champ for about nine
months) asked—and was allowed to—withdraw from the case, the court informed
Champ that he needed to file a new motion for recruitment of counsel by the end of
December 2022 if he wanted the court to find a new attorney for him. Champ moved for
recruitment of counsel. The court denied the motion but invited Champ to refile if he
provided more information about his personal characteristics (e.g., education level and
intellectual capacity, ability to read and write, litigation experience, mental health and
medical history, physical limitations) and current circumstances (e.g., access to the law
library, availability of assistance from other inmates, access to writing supplies).
Defendants moved in early 2023 for summary judgment, and Champ filed
additional requests for counsel. The court eventually denied each of Champ’s requests
and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which Champ had not
responded to. The court independently reviewed the record, found undisputed the
evidence that Champ’s water was turned back on as needed throughout the day, and
concluded that no reasonable jury could find that periodically shutting off his toilet
water posed any objectively serious threat to his health.
On appeal, Champ’s brief does not challenge any aspect of the district court’s
decision and instead merely alludes to sources of federal jurisdiction and his request for
a declaratory judgment. This is insufficient; Champ’s brief must contain his
“contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the
record on which [he] relies.” F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d
544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Champ’s brief does not comply with this Rule, we
dismiss his appeal.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --