Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01102/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01102-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-1102

DONALD L. MCDONALD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MARCUS HARDY, Warden, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 1:13-cv-02046 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.

____________________

SUBMITTED JANUARY 7, 2016∗— DECIDED MAY 9, 2016

____________________

Before RIPPLE, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Donald McDonald was diagnosed 

with arthritis and high cholesterol while serving a life sen-

 ∗ After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and 

record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
2 No. 15-1102

tence at Stateville Correctional Center (“Stateville”), a maximum-security prison in Illinois. Over the ten years following 

his diagnosis, he received a low-cholesterol diet planned by a 

dietician at the facility. In 2009, however, a new warden took 

the helm at Stateville, and he promptly discharged the dietician and cancelled all special diets, including Mr. McDonald’s. The new warden also decreased the frequency of outdoor recreation for inmates to two days each week and altered 

the prison’s job-assignment policy to restrict inmates from 

working in a particular job for more than one year.

As a result of these changes, Mr. McDonald brought this 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Marcus Hardy, the new 

warden, Daryl Edwards, an assistant warden, and Salvador 

Godinez, then the director of the Illinois Department of Corrections.1 Mr. McDonald claimed that Warden Hardy, with 

the support of Assistant Warden Edwards, had violated the 

Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by cancelling his prescribed low-cholesterol diet, decreasing his outdoor-recreation time, and changing the jobassignment system. Mr. McDonald also alleged that Director 

Godinez had violated the Equal Protection Clause by allowing inmates at the other maximum-security prisons in Illinois 

to have prescription diets and more time for outdoor recreation. Mr. McDonald sought both damages and injunctive relief.

 1 After this appeal was filed, Director Godinez retired from the Illinois

Department of Corrections, and Warden Hardy accepted a different position within the Department. It is unclear whether Assistant Warden Edwards still works for the Department. For simplicity we refer to the three 

defendants by the titles they held at the times relevant to Mr. McDonald’s 

complaint.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 3

The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on each of Mr. McDonald’s four claims. In this 

appeal, Mr. McDonald challenges the grant of summary judgment only as to his claims concerning the cancellation of his 

low-cholesterol diet, the limited time given for outdoor recreation, and the purported disparity of treatment of inmates at 

different Illinois maximum-security prisons. Mr. McDonald 

does not mention the district court’s rejection of his claim 

about the new system for assigning prison jobs; that claim 

therefore has been abandoned. See Thornton v. M7 Aerospace

LP, 796 F.3d 757, 771 (7th Cir. 2015); Hentosh v. Herman M. 

Finch Univ. of Health Scis./The Chicago Med. Sch., 167 F.3d 1170, 

1173 (7th Cir. 1999).

We conclude that Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden 

Edwards are not entitled to summary judgment on 

Mr. McDonald’s claim concerning the cancellation of his prescription diet, and we remand that claim for further proceedings. In all other respects we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

I

BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Because the district court ruled in favor of the defendants 

at summary judgment, we view the following facts in the light 

most favorable to Mr. McDonald, the nonmoving party. See 

Riker v. Lemmon, 798 F.3d 546, 551 (7th Cir. 2015).

Mr. McDonald, who has been incarcerated at Stateville for 

twenty years, was diagnosed with high cholesterol in 1998. A 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
4 No. 15-1102

physician at the prison prescribed a low-cholesterol diet, 

along with cholesterol-lowering medication.2 Mr. McDonald 

remained on that prescription diet until the end of 2009, when 

Warden Hardy took charge. Warden Hardy then fired 

Stateville’s dietician and cancelled all medical diets. Since 

then, Mr. McDonald has eaten the regular diet at Stateville, 

which includes foods that the dietician had warned him to 

avoid, including cheese, eggs, and foods containing high 

amounts of mayonnaise.3 Medical providers working at Stateville repeatedly have told Mr. McDonald that they cannot reinstate his prescription for a low-cholesterol diet because the 

cafeteria staff does not have the means to satisfy the prescription.

During a January 2014 deposition, Mr. McDonald 

acknowledged that his total cholesterol level had decreased at 

some point during the two years preceding the deposition, 

perhaps because doctors continued experimenting with different cholesterol medications.4 Specifically, Mr. McDonald 

 

2 At summary judgment, Mr. McDonald submitted an excerpt from what 

he referred to as the American College of Physicians’ “Complete Home 

Medical Guide,” which supports his contentions that “changes in diet and 

exercise habits” typically are the first line of defense against high cholesterol and that medications are prescribed only if “these measures fail,” on 

their own, at lowering total cholesterol to a safe level. R.50 at 7–8; R.51 at 

11. 

3 The excerpt submitted by Mr. McDonald, see supra note 2, also asserts 

that “[a] high cholesterol level is associated with a diet that is high in fats, 

particularly saturated fats,” R.51 at 10–11.

4 Mr. McDonald is also litigating a separate lawsuit alleging that many of 

the medications doctors prescribed were ineffective at lowering his cholesterol and, in some instances, have caused harmful side effects. See 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 5

stated that his total cholesterol level had gone “down from 

400” milligrams per deciliter (“mg/dL”) to “around three.”5

That level, he added, was “still too high.”6 There is no evidence in the record, however, about Mr. McDonald’s cholesterol level when his diet was cancelled four years before that 

deposition. 

Mr. McDonald also has been diagnosed with arthritis, for 

which physicians have recommended exercises and sometimes prescribed pain medication. Stateville provides inmates 

with outdoor recreation twice each week for two and one-half 

hours each day, but Mr. McDonald alleges that this time is insufficient to provide therapeutic treatment for his arthritis. He 

also asserts that other maximum-security Illinois prisons provide “full yard,” meaning “they have sometimes three and 

four times a day exercise programs where [inmates] might get 

three yards and a gym.”7

 

McDonald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 09 C 4196, 2015 WL 3896929 

(N.D. Ill. June 23, 2015) (denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment).

5 R.44-1 at 20 (11:18).

6 Id. (11:19).

7 Id. at 22 (21:5–8). Mr. McDonald purportedly learned this information 

from inmates incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center and Pontiac 

Correctional Center, the other maximum-security prisons in Illinois.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
6 No. 15-1102

B. Earlier Proceedings

Mr. McDonald brought this action in March 2013. He first 

alleged that Warden Hardy had violated the Eighth Amendment by “maintain[ing] and enforc[ing an] institutional policy denying Plaintiff a low cholesterol diet.”8 He also asserted 

that Warden Hardy was “the moving force behind the Policy 

of two (2) days of recreation, two hours each day,” which, he 

said, caused him “to aggravate his medical conditions of high 

cholesterol, arth[ritis] and borderline diabetes.”9 Mr. McDonald next contended that Assistant Warden Edwards had violated the Eighth Amendment when he “failed to create programs that offered medical diets” and failed to provide sufficient time for outdoor recreation.10 Finally, Mr. McDonald alleged that Director Godinez unconstitutionally discriminated 

against similarly situated Illinois inmates “by allowing 

Menard Correctional Center and Pontiac Correctional Center 

to provide special medical diets and yard or gym (exercise) 

more than two (2) times a we[e]k.”11 He sought damages 

against the individual defendants as well as “an injunction 

[r]equiring Stateville Correctional Center [to] provide [s]pecial diets for high cholesterol [and] diabetes, and an opportunity for plaintiff to exercise five (5) days a week.”12

 8 R.1 at 8.

9 Id. at 8–9.

10 Id. at 9.

11 Id. at 10.

12 Id. at 12.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 7

In August 2013, five months after Mr. McDonald brought 

this action, he requested various documents from the defendants, including a “complete copy” of his medical file at Stateville, policies and procedures concerning medical diets and 

opportunities for exercise at Stateville, and policies and procedures concerning opportunities for exercise throughout the 

Illinois Department of Corrections.13 When the defendants 

failed to respond with all of the requested documents, 

Mr. McDonald twice asked the district court to compel production, and both times the court ordered the defendants to 

comply with Mr. McDonald’s discovery requests. 

Three months after the second order compelling discovery, and without complying with that order, the defendants 

moved for summary judgment. Warden Hardy and Assistant 

Warden Edwards did not dispute that Mr. McDonald had a 

medical prescription for a low-cholesterol diet when Warden 

Hardy arrived at Stateville in late 2009. Instead, these defendants simply asserted that “[n]o physician ha[d] prescribed a 

low cholesterol diet for Plaintiff in the last several years.”14

These defendants also did not dispute that Warden Hardy 

had given (and Assistant Warden Edwards had carried out) 

the order to cancel Mr. McDonald’s prescription. Nor did they 

offer evidence that Warden Hardy had consulted Mr. McDonald’s physicians (or any medical source) before cancelling 

Mr. McDonald’s prescription diet. And these defendants did 

not offer a medical expert’s opinion that Mr. McDonald’s lowcholesterol diet was unnecessary or that cancelling it had not 

 

13 R.21 at 10.

14 R.43 at 4 (emphasis added).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
8 No. 15-1102

harmed him and had not placed him at a greater risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke. 

Rather, the only relevant evidence submitted by any of the 

defendants was the transcript of Mr. McDonald’s deposition. 

Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards—without 

producing any evidence showing what Mr. McDonald’s cholesterol level had been before his diet was cancelled—asserted 

that Mr. McDonald did not have a valid claim because during 

his deposition he had acknowledged that his cholesterol level 

decreased from 400 mg/dL to 300 mg/dL in the two years preceding that January 2014 deposition. The defendants contended that this decrease established that Mr. McDonald’s 

high cholesterol was being treated adequately “by physicians 

at Stateville with medication.”15 The defendants did not explain, though, how Mr. McDonald’s claim could be defeated 

by evidence that his cholesterol level remained at least as high 

as 300 mg/dL two years or more after they had ended his diet. 

Mr. McDonald countered with medical literature (accepted by 

the district court without objection from the defendants) explaining that the optimal cholesterol range for someone of 

middle age is 115 mg/dL to 200 mg/dL. The defendants did 

not offer evidence, or even suggest, that a cholesterol level of 

either 300 mg/dL or 400 mg/dL is safe.

In granting summary judgment for the defendants on all 

claims, the district court first rejected Mr. McDonald’s contention that the amount of outdoor recreation available to Stateville inmates is constitutionally deficient. The court reasoned 

that Mr. McDonald’s evidence concerning his opportunities to 

exercise both in his cell and outdoors defeated his claim of an 

 15 Id.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 9

Eighth Amendment violation, particularly because 

Mr. McDonald had not presented evidence “that the limitation on his yard time adversely affected his cholesterol level 

or his arthritis.”16 The court then turned to the cancellation of 

Mr. McDonald’s low-cholesterol diet. In rejecting that claim, 

the court asserted that Mr. McDonald lacked “evidence showing that a doctor has prescribed him a low cholesterol diet or 

that the lack of such a diet has hindered his ability to control 

his cholesterol levels.”17 Mr. McDonald simply disagreed, the 

court reasoned, with the medical treatment provided by doctors at Stateville. And, the court emphasized, because the defendants are not physicians, they are permitted to “reasonably rely on the judgment of medical professionals regarding 

the care provided to an inmate.”18 Finally, the court concluded 

that Director Godinez was entitled to summary judgment on 

Mr. McDonald’s equal protection claim; Director Godinez’s 

decisions concerning inmates at different prisons in Illinois 

are presumed to be rational, the court explained, and 

Mr. McDonald’s “belief” that Stateville inmates are unfairly 

allowed less time for recreation and deprived of prescription 

diets was insufficient to overcome that presumption.19

 16 R.55 at 7.

17 Id. at 10.

18 Id. at 11.

19 Id. at 12.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
10 No. 15-1102

II

DISCUSSION

We review the district court’s decision granting summary 

judgment de novo. Riker, 798 F.3d at 551. Summary judgment 

is appropriate only if, construing the record in the light most 

favorable to the party opposing summary judgment, no jury 

could reasonably find in favor of that party. Bagwe v. Sedgwick 

Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 811 F.3d 866, 879 (7th Cir. 2016).

A. Eighth Amendment Claim Based on Cancellation of 

Low-Cholesterol Diet

Mr. McDonald submits that the district court improperly 

granted summary judgment on his claim that Warden Hardy 

and Assistant Warden Edwards displayed deliberate indifference to his high cholesterol by cancelling his prescription diet. 

The Eighth Amendment, which applies to the states 

through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment, requires that inmates receive adequate medical 

care. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104–05 (1976); Pyles v. 

Fahim, 771 F.3d 403, 408 (7th Cir. 2014); Knight v. Wiseman, 590 

F.3d 458, 463 (7th Cir. 2009). However, an inmate claiming a 

violation of the Eighth Amendment must do more than show 

negligence, medical malpractice, or disagreement with a prescribed course of treatment; the inmate must demonstrate that 

prison staff was deliberately indifferent to an objectively serious medical condition. See Pyles, 771 F.3d at 409; Duckworth v. 

Ahmad, 532 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir. 2008).20 Where, as here, an 

 20 See also Johnson v. Doughty, 433 F.3d 1001, 1012–13 (7th Cir. 2006); Kelley 

v. McGinnis, 899 F.2d 612, 616 (7th Cir. 1990).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 11

inmate sues prison employees who are not part of the medical 

staff, deliberate indifference can be shown with evidence that 

those employees ignored or interfered with a course of treatment prescribed by a physician. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05 

(explaining that deliberate indifference can be “manifested by 

prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by 

prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to 

medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment 

once prescribed” (footnotes omitted)).21

An objectively serious medical condition is one that “a 

physician has diagnosed as needing treatment” or that is so 

obviously serious “that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Knight, 590 F.3d at 

463 (internal quotation marks omitted).22 Prisoners typically 

point to acute problems that, because of inadequate treatment, already have caused or aggravated pain or other harm. 

See, e.g., Conley v. Birch, 796 F.3d 742, 744–45, 747 (7th Cir. 

2015) (fractured hand); Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 774, 776 

(7th Cir. 2015) (torn ligament in hand, dislocated thumb, tissue damage, and open wound).23 No less objectively serious, 

 

21 See also Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 828–29 (7th 

Cir. 2009); Chapman v. Keltner, 241 F.3d 842, 845–46 (7th Cir. 2001); Burgess

v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 476 (6th Cir. 2013).

22 See also Gayton v. McCoy, 593 F.3d 610, 620 (7th Cir. 2010); Edwards v. 

Snyder, 478 F.3d 827, 830–31 (7th Cir. 2007).

23 See also Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 865 (7th Cir. 2012) (shotgun 

wound); Rodriguez, 577 F.3d at 830 (incorrect insertion of IV needle); 

Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 779 (7th Cir. 2008) (nasal fracture); Edwards, 478 F.3d at 831 (dislocated and fractured finger); O'Malley v. 

Litscher, 465 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 2006) (burns).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
12 No. 15-1102

though, are chronic or degenerative conditions that cause 

harm that may escalate and have significant future repercussions unless adequately treated. For example, high cholesterol, known as “the silent killer,” can progress over an extended period of time without apparent side effects before 

eventually reaching a crisis point and causing potentially 

deadly health problems, including heart attacks and strokes.24

Custodians are not excused from ensuring adequate treatment for inmates with chronic or degenerative conditions 

simply because any resulting harms may remain latent or 

have not yet reached the point of causing acute or life-threatening injuries. See Miller v. Campanella, 794 F.3d 878, 878, 880 

(7th Cir. 2015) (gastroesophageal reflux disease); Ortiz v. City 

of Chicago, 656 F.3d 523, 526, 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (diabetes, thyroid condition, hypertension, and asthma); Roe v. Elyea, 631 

F.3d 843, 861–62 (7th Cir. 2011) (hepatitis C); Gayton v. McCoy, 

593 F.3d 610, 620–21 (7th Cir. 2010) (congestive heart failure); 

Greeno v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 648, 653 (7th Cir. 2005) (severe 

heartburn and frequent vomiting); Reed v. McBride, 178 F.3d 

849, 851, 853 (7th Cir. 1999) (paralysis, heart disease, Hunt’s 

syndrome, high blood pressure, rheumatoid arthritis, and 

“other crippling diseases”).25 Indeed, it is precisely the latent 

 

24 See High Cholesterol: The Silent Killer, HEALTH CENT. (Mar. 23, 2011), 

http://www.healthcentral.com/cholesterol/c/684890/134294/cholesterol/; 

High Cholesterol Overview, MAYO CLINIC (Feb. 9, 2016), http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/home/ovc20181871.

25 See also Leavitt v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 645 F.3d 484, 487–88, 498 (1st Cir. 

2011) (HIV); Johnson v. Wright, 412 F.3d 398, 400 (2d Cir. 2005) (hepatitis C);

Hunt v. Uphoff, 199 F.3d 1220, 1222–24 (10th Cir. 1999) (hypertension and 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 13

and incremental nature of the harms associated with such 

conditions that makes the provision of adequate medical care 

so important.26

With that in mind, we turn to the merits of Mr. McDonald’s

claim of deliberate indifference. We first note that the hurdles 

Mr. McDonald encountered in developing evidence to flesh 

out this claim are troubling, particularly with respect to essential medical records. Twice the district court had to direct the 

defendants to comply with Mr. McDonald’s discovery requests, yet Mr. McDonald informs us that the defendants 

never fully complied with the court’s orders. The defendants 

do not deny this accusation or explain their conduct. Instead, 

they insist that, “other than his two motions to compel,” 

Mr. McDonald “identifies nothing in the record to show that 

he brought any of the...claimed discovery ‘violations’ to the 

attention of the district court.”27 The defendants add that 

 

diabetes); Rouse v. Plantier, 182 F.3d 192, 195, 198–99 (3d Cir. 1999) (diabetes); Aswegan v. Bruhl, 965 F.2d 676, 677 (8th Cir. 1992) (coronary artery 

disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and arthritis); McCarthy 

v. Weinberg, 753 F.2d 836, 836–37 (10th Cir. 1985) (multiple sclerosis); cf. 

Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 (1993) (holding that inmate can state 

claim of deliberate indifference by alleging “unreasonable risk of serious 

damage to his future health” (emphasis added)). 

26 Adequate treatment of chronic conditions is a serious concern in correctional institutions, where, at least one study has shown, there is a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, asthma, arthritis, cervical cancer, and hepatitis. Ingrid A. Bingswanger, Chronic Medical Diseases Among 

Jail and Prison Inmates, CORRECTIONS.COM (Oct. 25, 2010), http://www.corrections.com/news/article/26014-chronic-medical-diseases-among-jailand-prison-inmates. 

27 Appellees’ Br. 28. This assertion is puzzling; by filing two motions complaining of inadequate responses to his discovery requests, Mr. McDonald 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
14 No. 15-1102

Mr. McDonald “does not explain how not having the particular documents he complains Defendants never produced—

e.g., his medical records showing that he had been prescribed 

a low-cholesterol diet years ago and the prior policy of seven 

hours of recreation per week—prejudiced him in any way on 

summary judgment.”28 Finally, the defendants point out that 

Mr. McDonald did not ask for additional time to complete discovery or submit an affidavit swearing that he could not adequately oppose summary judgment without the documents. 

See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d); First Nat’l Bank & Trust Corp. v. Am. 

Eurocopter Corp., 378 F.3d 682, 693–94 (7th Cir. 2004). Litigants, 

however, cannot ignore legitimate discovery requests based 

on a unilateral belief that flouting the rules of procedure will 

not harm their opponents,29 and continued intransigence after 

the district court has compelled compliance is inexcusable.30

In any event, what little evidence Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards did submit in opposing Mr. McDonald’s claim about his prescription diet actually supports, rather than defeats, that claim, and thus we must overturn the 

grant of summary judgment regardless whether the docu-

 

did bring the alleged discovery violations to the attention of the district 

court.

28 Id. at 28–29.

29 See Sentis Grp., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 763 F.3d 919, 925 (8th Cir. 2014); Farm 

Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Fudge, 831 F.2d 18, 20–21 (1st Cir. 1987).

30 See Negrete v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 547 F.3d 721, 723–24 (7th Cir. 

2008); Israel Travel Advisory Serv., Inc. v. Israel Identity Tours, Inc., 61 F.3d 

1250, 1254–55 (7th Cir. 1995); Fair Hous. of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 

905–06 (9th Cir. 2002).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 15

ments withheld by the defendants were material. The evidence is undisputed that when Warden Hardy arrived at Stateville in late 2009 he cancelled (and Assistant Warden Edwards refused to reinstate) all prescription diets, including 

Mr. McDonald’s. These defendants, however, are not physicians, and there is no evidence in the record that they ever 

consulted a medical professional about the advisability of 

cancelling the allowance for low-cholesterol diets at the 

prison. Interference with prescribed treatment is a well-recognized example of how nonmedical prison personnel can display deliberate indifference to inmates’ medical conditions. 

See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104–05; Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance 

Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 828–29 (7th Cir. 2009).31

Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards fall back 

on their contention that nothing was taken away from 

Mr. McDonald because he “presented no evidence that a medical professional has prescribed a low-cholesterol diet for 

him.”32 First, we note the obvious conflict that this statement 

presents with the defendants’ assertion in the same brief that 

full compliance with Mr. McDonald’s discovery requests, 

which included requests for medical records proving the existence of the prescription, would not have changed the result 

at summary judgment. In any event, this characterization of 

the evidence at summary judgment is wrong: Mr. McDonald 

testified at his deposition that he was given a prescription diet 

when he was diagnosed with high cholesterol and that he was 

still receiving that low-cholesterol diet when Warden Hardy 

 

31 See also Chapman, 241 F.3d at 845–46; Williams v. Ramos, 71 F.3d 1246, 

1250 (7th Cir. 1995); Burgess, 735 F.3d at 476.

32 Appellees’ Br. 18.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
16 No. 15-1102

took it away. The defendants did not introduce evidence that 

prescription diets expire or must be renewed periodically, nor 

did they introduce evidence that an inmate could have been 

receiving a nonstandard, low-cholesterol diet without a prescription. Rather, their statement of uncontested facts at summary judgment stated only that Mr. McDonald had not been 

prescribed a low-cholesterol diet “in the last several years,”33

i.e., since Warden Hardy fired the prison dietician. But this 

fact does not help the defendants. That Mr. McDonald was not 

given a prescription after Warden Hardy took over is not evidence that a prescription was medically unnecessary; in fact, 

the absence of a prescription after Warden Hardy’s arrival is 

the very reason for Mr. McDonald’s lawsuit. No physician 

would give him a prescription, he explained at his deposition, 

because after Warden Hardy’s arrival four years earlier a prescription for a low-cholesterol diet would have been ignored 

by the cafeteria staff.

Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards next point 

to the medical treatment for high cholesterol that Mr. McDonald had been receiving—a variety of prescription medicines—

and contend that this claim of deliberate indifference amounts 

to nothing more than Mr. McDonald’s disagreement with the 

medical staff’s chosen course of treatment. Despite the fact 

that eliminating Mr. McDonald’s prescription diet was not the 

medical staff’s choice, the district court was persuaded by the 

defendants’ reasoning. At his deposition, however, 

Mr. McDonald testified that medication alone was ineffective 

at lowering his cholesterol to a safe level. A level of 300 mg/dL 

 33 R.44 at 2.

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 17

is “too high,” he stated.34 The defendants did not submit any 

evidence challenging that statement.35 A jury reasonably 

could find that Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards were deliberately indifferent to Mr. McDonald’s condition when they ignored his pleas to honor the medical staff’s 

inclusion of a low-cholesterol diet in his treatment plan. See 

Smego v. Mitchell, 723 F.3d 752, 758 (7th Cir. 2013) (explaining 

that “[a] physician is deliberately indifferent when he persists 

in an ineffective treatment”).36 Moreover, Mr. McDonald introduced evidence, again without contradiction, that a combination of medication, a low-cholesterol diet, and exercise is 

the medically accepted method of lowering high cholesterol. 

Warden Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards touch on, 

but have not developed, an argument concerning causation. 

See Flint v. City of Belvidere, 791 F.3d 764, 770 (7th Cir. 2015) 

(explaining that plaintiff alleging constitutional tort must 

 

34 R.44-1 at 20 (11:19).

35 Indeed, it is apparent after browsing readily available sources targeted 

at lay persons that a total cholesterol level above 240 mg/dL is high. See 

High Blood Cholesterol Levels In-Depth Report, N.Y. TIMES, http://www.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/high-blood-cholesterol-and-triglycerides/print.html (last visited Apr. 20, 2016); High Cholesterol, U.S. DEP’T OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS, NAT’L CTR. FOR HEALTH PROMOTION & DISEASE 

PREVENTION (April 2009), http://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/

wysiwyg/patients-consumers/prevention/disease/cholpatient.pdf; Know 

the Facts About High Cholesterol, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION 

1, http://www.cdc.gov/cholesterol/docs/ConsumerEd_Cholesterol.pdf 

(last visited Apr. 20, 2016). 

36 See also Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 754 (7th Cir. 2011) (same); Greeno 

v. Daley, 414 F.3d 645, 655 (7th Cir. 2005) (same); Kelley, 899 F.2d at 616–17 

(same).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
18 No. 15-1102

show that defendant caused injury); Roe, 631 F.3d at 863–64. 

In their summary judgment motion, the defendants stated 

only that Mr. McDonald “can provide no evidence that his 

cholesterol level has been affected by not having a low cholesterol diet.”37 However, given the diagnosis of a serious 

medical condition and the interference by Warden Hardy and 

Assistant Warden Edwards with a physician’s assessment that 

a low-cholesterol diet was necessary in treating that condition, a jury reasonably could infer that Mr. McDonald was, 

and continues to be, harmed by the lack of a low-cholesterol 

diet. See Gayton, 593 F.3d at 624–25 (concluding that jury could 

infer causation from evidence of serious medical condition 

and requests for treatment that were ignored); Grieveson v. Anderson, 538 F.3d 763, 779 (7th Cir. 2008) (explaining that jury 

could infer that delay in providing treatment caused harm). 

The defendants made no effort to establish that Mr. McDonald’s level of total cholesterol remained steady after his prescription diet was taken away. Nor did they offer an expert’s 

opinion that Mr. McDonald could not have been harmed by 

the defendants’ actions.38 Accordingly, we must return this 

claim to the district court for further proceedings.

 37 R.43 at 4.

38 We note that evidence in the public record of a separate lawsuit, McDonald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 09 C 4196 (N.D. Ill.), supports 

Mr. McDonald’s contention that he has been harmed by the defendants’ 

actions. According to a medical report submitted in response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in that lawsuit, Mr. McDonald 

has been diagnosed with atherosclerosis of the aorta, a “hardening and 

narrowing of the arteries” that can be caused by high cholesterol and “is 

the usual cause of heart attacks, strokes, and peripheral vascular disease,” 

What Is Atherosclerosis, WEBMD (May 26, 2014), http://www.webmd.com/

heart-disease/what-is-atherosclerosis. 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 19

B. Eighth Amendment Claim Based on Outdoor Recreation

Mr. McDonald contends that the court erroneously 

granted summary judgment to Warden Hardy and Assistant 

Warden Edwards on his claim that the five hours they allow 

for outdoor recreation each week is constitutionally deficient. 

In contrast with the claim about his low-cholesterol diet, however, Mr. McDonald presented no evidence that a physician 

had specified a minimum level of outdoor recreation to treat 

either his arthritis or high cholesterol. See Jackson v. Kotter, 541 

F.3d 688, 697–98 (7th Cir. 2008) (explaining that 

Eighth Amendment does not give inmates right to dictate 

course of treatment); Forbes v. Edgar, 112 F.3d 262, 266–67 (7th 

Cir. 1997) (same). These defendants therefore are entitled to 

summary judgment on this claim.

C. Equal Protection Claim

Mr. McDonald additionally argues that the district court 

improperly granted summary judgment on his claim that Director Godinez, the former director of the Illinois Department 

of Corrections, discriminated against Stateville inmates in violation of the Equal Protection Clause by denying them medical diets and greater opportunities for outdoor recreation, 

both of which, he says, are available at the other two maximum-security prisons in Illinois. Mr. McDonald, however, admitted during his deposition that he lacks personal 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
20 No. 15-1102

knowledge of the conditions at the state’s other maximum-security prisons, which dooms his claim at summary judgment.39

D. Remaining Issues

Three other matters remain. First, because Mr. McDonald 

seeks injunctive relief on his claim that Warden Hardy interfered with his prescribed diet, the district court on remand 

should add as a defendant, in his official capacity, the current 

warden of Stateville. 

Second, we note that Mr. McDonald currently has pending 

before the same district judge a second, related lawsuit claiming that Wexford Health Sources (a company that contracts 

with Illinois to provide medical care to its prisoners), along 

with its employees, was deliberately indifferent to his high 

cholesterol by prescribing ineffective and harmful medications. McDonald v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., No. 09 C 4196 

(N.D. Ill.). In that second suit the district court recruited counsel for Mr. McDonald. That lawyer retained a medical expert, 

and the district court recently denied the defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment. Because the legal issues and facts 

overlap significantly, the district court on remand should consider consolidating the two lawsuits and requesting that 

counsel also represent Mr. McDonald in this one. See FED. R.

CIV. P. 42(a)(2) (allowing district court to consolidate actions 

that “involve a common question of law or fact”); Blair v. 

 39 See Markel v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wis. Sys., 276 F.3d 906, 912 (7th Cir. 

2002); Palucki v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 879 F.2d 1568, 1572 (7th Cir. 1989).

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21
No. 15-1102 21

Equifax Check Servs., Inc., 181 F.3d 832, 839 (7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that consolidation is “[b]y far the best means of 

avoiding wasteful overlap when related suits are pending in 

the same court”). 

Finally, on remand the district court should resolve 

Mr. McDonald’s assertion that the defendants have stonewalled his discovery demands despite two orders from the 

court directing compliance.

Conclusion

The district court erred in granting the defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment on Mr. McDonald’s claim that Warden 

Hardy and Assistant Warden Edwards displayed deliberate 

indifference to his high cholesterol by cancelling and refusing 

to reinstate his low-cholesterol diet. Accordingly, we vacate 

the grant of summary judgment on that claim, and we remand 

that claim for further proceedings. In all other respects we affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and 

REMANDED in part 

Case: 15-1102 Document: 28 Filed: 05/09/2016 Pages: 21