# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted July 23
, 20 20 *

Decided July 23 , 20 20

Before

KENNETH F. RIP PLE
, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON
, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y

. SCUDDER
, Circuit Judge

No. 19

- 2693

LONNIE L. JACKSON Plaintiff

- Appellant
,

v

.

RYAN KUEPPER
, et al., Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 17

- C

- 0627

Lynn Adelman
, Judge

.

O R D E R

Despite having unlimited clean drinking water in her cell, Lonnie Jackson, a Wisconsin inmate, drank unclean water from the melted ice in a medical bag intended only for topical use to treat her sore back. She appeals the entry of summary judgment against her on claims that prison officials violated the Eighth Ame ndment by giving her that ice

. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because no jury could reasonabl y conclude that any defendant recklessly ignored a serious risk to Jackson’s health, we affirm the judgment.

* 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 NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 19

- 2693 Page 2

Jackson was housed at the Oshkosh Correctional Institut ion in April 2015 in a cell with a cup and a sink that dispense d drinkable water

. She received her prescribed medications
, including an ice bag to treat a lower back injury
, from a correctional officer each da y

. (Though Oshkosh is an all

- male prison, Jackson is a transgender woman, so we refer to her with feminine pronouns. ) As Jackson knew, i nmates may not consume the i ce placed in a medical bag

. O fficers often put salt or pe pper in the medical ice bags to prevent inmates from eating from it

. Jackson knew that eating the medical ice could result in losing her prescription for it . Nonetheless, she saw “ n o problem” with drinking the leftover water after the ice melts

.

Officer Ryan Kuepper w as responsible for the medical rounds on e evening when Jackson asked for her medical ice. Kuepper had recently transferred from an Arizona prison
, where he says it was “ common practice to put soap in the medical ice bags to prevent inmates from abusing the medical ice privilege by drinking it. ” He had never before given medical ice to an inmate at Oshkosh. He filled Jackson’s medical bag with ice and “out of habit” pu t one pump of liqui d hand

- soap into the bag, shook it, and gave it to Jackson. He did not tell her that he had put soap in the bag

.

That night, Jackson woke up, and wanted some water. Rather than filling her cup from the sink, s he poured the melted ice from the bag and dr ank three full cups of it

. Thirty minutes later, she began vomiting and realized that soap was in the water. The
next morning, she went to the prison’s health services unit

. After consulting poison

control experts, th e medical staff advised Jackson that the consumed soap needed to pass through her digestive sy stem and that its passage would have no effect on her medications nor cause any long

- term damage. For the next week, Jackson experienced various bouts of diarrhea, vomiting, light

- heade dness, stomach cramping, and nausea. She never requested follow

- up medical treatmen t

.
As relevant to this appeal, Jackson sued Kuepper and other officials , alleging that they violat ed her rights under the Eighth Amendment by deliberately ignoring the

ser ious medical risk of putting soap in her ice bag. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district
court entered summary judgment for the defendants. It concluded that no reasonable juror could find that (1) Jackson suffered a serious risk of harm from consuming the contents of the bag ; (2) the defendants knew that she would consume the contents; or (3) they knew that doing so would severely en danger her

.
On appeal, Jackson contends that summary judgment was improper because t he record suggest s that Kuepper deliberately ignored a serious risk to her health . WeNo. 19

- 2693 Page 3

review the entry of summary judgment de novo, construing the record and drawing all inferences in Jackson’s favor. Petties v. Carter , 836 F.3d 722, 72 7 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc)

. To get pas t summary judgment
, Jackson had to present evidence that she suffer ed a substantial risk of serious medical harm
, and that the defendants knew of
, and deliberately disregarded , that risk

. S ee Farmer v. Brennan
, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994)

.

We will assum e , as Jackson argues, that consuming ice from a bag into which liquid soap has been placed poses a substantial risk of serious harm ; even so, Jackson must lose. T he record does not contain evidence from which a jur y could reasonably find that Kuepper deliberately ignored a risk that Jackson would cons ume the soapy ice. Kuepper knew that in mates are forbidden f r om consuming ice in a medical bag (a policy that Jackson admits knowing)
, and he knew t hat Jackson had in her cell full access to drinking water. Thus, Kuepper did not have reason to think that Jackson faced

a substantial risk of drink ing soapy water from a medical bag

. Moreover, even if Kuepper did suspect that Jackson might consum e some ice (the soap, after all, was intended to deter inmates from ingesting any of it )
, Jacks on would still lose. For no evidence suggests that Kuepper thought that Jackson would drink enough soapy ice

- water (three cups in Jackson’s case ) to become ill

. Rather, it was reasonable for Kuepper to believe that the sudden soapy taste would deter Jackson from ingesting

more than a swallow and that she would instead use her sink for more water

.
Jackson next criticizes the district court’s reliance on three aspects of Kuepper’s testimony, which Jackson argues w ere false , bu t those aspects were immaterial and thus did not affect the outcome

. First
, she contends that the district court ignored evidence that Kuepper changed his story about where he got the soap ( the staff bathroom or the staff breakroom)

. Second, she points to a fact dispute about whether Arizona ’s Department of Corrections had a policy , as Kuepper testified, of putting soap in the ice ; she offer s on appeal a statement from th e Department that it had no such policy

. Third
, Jackson disputes that Kuepper had authority to add soap to the ice

. But none of those facts wa s material to the outcome of summary judgment

. Ev en if we accept ed Jackson’s favor ed version of these facts , the record would remain devoid of evidence that Kuepper knew that a pump of soap in a bag of ice w ould imperil Jackson
, given that the ice was for topical use only and Jackson had unlimited access to potable water

. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , Inc.
, 477 U.S. 242, 256

– 57 (1986 )

.
Finally, Jackson challenge s the district court’s conclusion that the two other defendants ( the warden and security director ) were unaware of the soap incident. T hese defendants acknowledge d that officers put salt and pepper into medical ice bags . F romNo. 19

- 2693 Page 4

this fact , Jackson concludes that they are responsible for any alter ation of the contents of

an inmate’ s medical ice bag

. But liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires personal involvement, see Mitchell v. Kallas , 895 F.3d 492, 498

– 99 ( 7th Cir. 2018), and Jackson offers no evidence that these defendants knew that Kuepper would put soap in the ice
, that Jackson would drink the melted ice rather than potable water, and that s he would do so in a qu antity that was harmful

. Thus, summary judgment in their favor was
proper.

We have considered Jackson’s other arguments, and none has merit. AFFIRMED