Stanley Boclair v. Rob Jeffreys

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 23, 2026*
Decided June 24, 2026
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2397
STANLEY BOCLAIR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROB JEFFREYS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 21-CV-00022-SPM
Stephen P. McGlynn,
Judge.
O R D E R
Stanley Boclair, an Illinois prisoner, appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to a prison nurse, who he claimed retaliated against him and denied him
* 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. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 5 --

No. 24-2397 Page 2
medical care, and to prison officials, who he claimed were deliberately indifferent to
hazardous prison conditions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We affirm.
We construe all facts and draw all reasonable inferences in Boclair’s favor, as the
non-moving party. See Arce v. Wexford Health Sources Inc., 75 F.4th 673, 678 (7th Cir.
2023). During the events giving rise to this lawsuit, Boclair was incarcerated at Menard
Correctional Center in Chester, Illinois. In October 2018, Boclair filed a grievance
against nurse Reva Engalage, alleging that she gave him an unnecessary tuberculosis
test. He filed another grievance against Engalage in May 2019, objecting to Engalage’s
treatment of his skin condition and to the prison’s response to his prior grievance.
Members of Menard’s health care unit responded to the grievances in June 2019. In both
cases, they reviewed Boclair’s medical records and found no wrongdoing on Engalage’s
part. Nothing in the record indicates that officials discussed the grievances with
Engalage.
Meanwhile, in early June 2019, the nearby Mississippi River flooded portions of
Menard, and the prison entered a lockdown until July. According to Boclair, there was
no movement within the prison, the flood contaminated Menard’s water supply,
prisoners received moldy bread and rancid milk.
Boclair fell ill shortly after the flood. Throughout June and early July, Boclair
experienced vomiting, stomach cramps, and fever. Prisoners at Menard could request to
see a nurse by informing correctional staff or by filling out a sick call slip. Prison
guidelines stipulated that the assigned cell-house nurse would review sick call slips
daily and schedule a nurse visit, but Boclair did not know who set the sick call schedule
on any given day. In June, Boclair handed a sick call slip to Engalage at least four times
and briefly explained his symptoms to her. Despite filling out the slips, Boclair was not
scheduled for sick call or seen by medical staff.
During the flood-related lockdown, Director Rob Jeffreys, Warden
Frank Lawrence, and Correctional Major David Evelsizer toured Boclair’s gallery. On
two occasions, Boclair informed them that “the water is messed up,” he was sick, and
he was struggling to get medical attention. Boclair did not provide details about the
water or his illness because Jeffreys cut him off after a few seconds. Eventually,
Evelsizer told Boclair that maintenance was aware of the water contamination. Boclair
did not inform any prison official about the issues with the food until he submitted a
grievance in late July, after problems caused by the flooding had subsided. There is no
evidence in the record that Menard’s dietary manager, Lloyd Hanna, knew of Boclair’s
concerns or was responsible for the quality of the food.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 24-2397 Page 3
Boclair sued in January 2021. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At summary judgment, Boclair
contended that Engalage denied him medical care in retaliation for his grievances
against her, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment, and that the denial of
care also amounted to a deprivation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. He also
argued that Jeffreys, Lawrence, Evelsizer, and Hanna were deliberately indifferent to
his conditions of his confinement, in violation of his rights under the Eighth
Amendment.1 The district court awarded summary judgment to the defendants,
concluding that Boclair failed to put forward evidence from which a reasonable jury
could infer a causal connection between his grievances and the alleged denial of
medical care or that any defendant was deliberately indifferent to his medical condition
or conditions of confinement. Alternatively, the court concluded that the defendants
were entitled to qualified immunity.
On appeal, Boclair contends that the district court ignored evidence in his favor,
drew inferences against him, and failed to fault the defendants for not producing
evidence of their own. We address first Boclair’s claim that Engalage refused to
schedule him for sick call because he filed grievances against her. To make out a
prima facie case that Engalage retaliated against him in violation of the First
Amendment, Boclair must show that he engaged in protected activity, that an adverse
action was taken against him, and that his protected conduct was a factor that
motivated the adverse action. See Holleman v. Zatecky, 951 F.3d 873, 878 (7th Cir. 2020).
On this record, a reasonable jury could not conclude that the protected conduct
motivated Engalage to deny Boclair medical care because there is no evidence that she
knew of his grievances. Boclair insists a jury could infer that Engalage was consulted
about his grievances during the investigation, but “sheer speculation” that a defendant
was informed of complaints against her is insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact.
See Consolino v. Towne, 872 F.3d 825, 830 (7th Cir. 2017). Nothing in the record indicates
that the officials who responded to Boclair’s grievances discussed the matter with
Engalage or that investigators usually informed employees of grievances filed against
them. See id. at 830–31 (no evidence that sheriff was told about testimony against him in
a particular instance or as a matter of course). Boclair also suggests that Engalage’s
refusal to schedule him for sick call was suspiciously close in time to the investigation
of his grievances against her. But for a jury to infer retaliation from suspicious timing
1 Boclair also sued Deputy Director Robert Mueller, who has since died. No one
moved to substitute Mueller’s estate, so the district court dismissed all claims against
him. See FED. R. C IV. P. 25(a)(1).

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 24-2397 Page 4
alone, Boclair would still have to produce evidence that Engalage knew about the
grievances. See Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 966 (7th Cir. 2012).
We turn next to Boclair’s remaining claims that the defendants inflicted cruel and
unusual punishment upon him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Prisoners have a
right to “humane conditions of confinement,” including “adequate food, clothing,
shelter, and medical care.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994). A prison official
is liable under the Eighth Amendment “only if he knows that inmates face a substantial
risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to
abate it.” Id. at 847. Though Boclair urges otherwise, as the plaintiff he bears the burden
of producing evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants
were deliberately indifferent. See Est. of Simpson v. Gorbett, 863 F.3d 740, 747 (7th Cir.
2017).
Even if we assume that Engalage knew that Boclair’s medical condition
presented a serious risk, Boclair has not presented evidence that Engalage was
deliberately indifferent to his fever, vomiting, and stomach cramping. Boclair suggests
that a jury could reasonably infer that Engalage denied him medical care because he
was not scheduled for sick call after handing his requests to her. In support of this
argument, Boclair points to a prison manual that states that the assigned cell-house
nurse should schedule prisoners for a nurse visit the day after they fill out a sick call
slip. But Boclair produced no evidence that Engalage was the assigned cell-house nurse
at the time he filled out any sick call slip, that she refused to pass along Boclair’s sick
call requests, or that she was personally responsible for arranging his medical care.
Indeed, Boclair did not inquire about Engalage’s job duties during discovery. Boclair’s
speculation that Engalage was the gatekeeper to medical care, “without any evidence
about what [she] may have done or not done,” is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact. Daugherty v. Page, 906 F.3d 606, 611 (7th Cir. 2018).
Nor has Boclair presented evidence suggesting that Lawrence, Evelsizer, Jeffreys,
or Hanna were deliberately indifferent to the conditions at Menard.2 We assume
without deciding that the alleged food and water contamination was objectively
serious. We also accept that Boclair informed Evelsizer, Jeffreys, and Lawrence—at least
2 In the district court, Boclair contended that Lawrence, Evelsizer, and Jeffreys
also ignored his complaints about his illness and lack of medical treatment, but he does
not press this argument on appeal and so has waived it. See Bradley v. Village of
University Park, 59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023).

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 24-2397 Page 5
in general terms—about the water contamination. But Boclair did not produce evidence
that the defendants failed to reasonably respond to that risk. To the contrary, Evelsizer
informed Boclair that maintenance was aware of the water contamination. Without
evidence that the defendants caused the problem, increased the risk Boclair faced, or
interfered with other officials’ response to the flooding, no reasonable jury could
conclude that they were deliberately indifferent for permitting maintenance to address
Boclair’s concerns. See Burks v. Raemisch, 555 F.3d 592, 595–96 (7th Cir. 2009)
(“Bureaucracies divide tasks; no prisoner is entitled to insist that one employee do
another’s job.”). Lastly, we note that Boclair produced no evidence that Hanna, Jeffreys,
or any other defendant knew about the moldy bread or rancid milk, and the defendants
cannot be liable for a condition of which they were unaware. See Daugherty, 906 F.3d
at 611.
We have reviewed Boclair’s other arguments, but none has merit. Accordingly,
the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 5 of 5 --