United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted November 18, 2021*

Decided November 18, 2021 

Before 

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge 

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 21-2049 

NICHOLAS STEINKE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

GERALD KRUEGER, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees. 

 

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 17-cv-0656-bhl 

Brett H. Ludwig, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 Nicholas Steinke, a Wisconsin inmate, appeals the judgment in favor of the 

correctional officers who refused his requests for a bottom bunk and a lower-floor cell 

* 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. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 
No. 21-2049 Page 2 

despite his history of seizures and injuries from a fall. The district court granted the 

officers’ motion for summary judgment on Steinke’s claims under the Eighth 

Amendment, concluding that the officers were not deliberately indifferent because they 

are non-medical staff and there were no medical orders for Steinke to have a bottom 

bunk or first-floor cell. We agree with this reasoning and therefore affirm the judgment. 

 

We relate the facts in the light most favorable to Steinke. See Hackett v. City of 

South Bend, 956 F.3d 504, 507 (7th Cir. 2020). When Steinke completed the intake process 

at Dodge Correctional Institution in Waupun, Wisconsin in 2017, he reported that he 

had a history of seizures but had not experienced a seizure or taken anti-seizure 

medicines in the past year. An inmate’s medical restrictions are recorded in his profile 

in the Wisconsin Integrated Corrections System, a central database for the Wisconsin 

Department of Corrections. Steinke did not have a bottom-bunk restriction in the 

database when he arrived at Dodge, and the nurse who completed Steinke’s intake 

exam did not restrict him to a lower bunk based on his report. 

When Steinke was assigned an upper bunk, he told a correctional officer, Gerald 

Krueger, that he needed a lower bunk because of his seizures. Krueger checked 

Steinke’s profile in the database and saw that he did not have a bottom-bunk order. He 

told Steinke to fill out a health-services request because only a medical provider could 

approve a medically based bottom-bunk restriction. Another correctional officer, 

Brenda Chapman, overheard this conversation and told Steinke to put his mattress on 

the floor until they could resolve the issue. He did not. Steinke then requested a bunk 

reassignment from Sergeant Ricky Breselow. Krueger explained that Steinke did not 

have a medical order for a bottom bunk and could not be reassigned. 

Later that afternoon, Steinke fell off his bunk and claimed that he had suffered a 

seizure. He was taken to the emergency room where he was diagnosed with bruises and 

a strained neck and released the same day. Back at the prison, Steinke was reassigned to 

a bottom bunk in a cell on the second floor of his unit. Steinke says that he returned 

from the hospital in a wheelchair and neck brace (no one from the prison remembers 

this), and he told a correctional officer, Alyssa Maltby, and a sergeant, Linden Hannon, 

that he needed a cell on the first floor so that he would not have to take the stairs. But 

because Steinke did not have a medical restriction for first-floor housing, they denied 

his request, and Steinke experienced pain when he climbed the stairs up to his cell. 

In his lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Steinke asserted that Krueger, Chapman, 

and Breselow were deliberately indifferent to his need for the bottom-bunk bed, and 
No. 21-2049 Page 3 

that Maltby and Hannon were deliberately indifferent to his need for a first-floor cell 

after his fall, all in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. This case was 

consolidated with another that Steinke had brought against officials at the same prison 

for their alleged failure to provide medical care when he had a seizure and fell in 2014. 

The district court had recruited counsel for Steinke in that case, and counsel took on this 

one, too. Eventually, the defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. 

 

As relevant to this appeal, the district court granted the motion with respect to 

the claims arising from the 2017 seizure. It explained that the defendants were entitled 

to rely upon medical professionals and that, without a medical order, they lacked 

authority to reassign inmates to new bunks or floors. Thus, they did not deny Steinke’s 

requests out of deliberate indifference to his health and safety. 

On appeal, Steinke appears to argue that he presented sufficient evidence that 

Krueger, Chapman, and Breselow acted with deliberate indifference when they did not 

reassign him to a lower bunk or call the prison’s health-services unit to question the 

information in the prison database. But non-medical prison officials are entitled to rely 

upon medical professionals about the medical treatment of prisoners, and the nurse 

who did Steinke’s intake did not restrict him. Giles v. Godinez, 914 F.3d 1040, 1049 

(7th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 50 (2019). And, although they could not grant 

Steinke’s request without a documented medical restriction, the officers tried to help: 

Krueger consulted the database to see if a restriction existed and advised Steinke how to 

obtain one, and Chapman told Steinke that he could place his mattress on the floor for 

the time being. Sergeant Breselow knew that Krueger had searched Steinke’s profile and 

found no medical restrictions, so he too lacked a reason for moving Krueger. On these 

facts, no reasonable juror could find that these officers recklessly disregarded Steinke’s 

serious health needs, as would be required to show deliberate indifference. Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 836 (1994); Jones v. Mathews, 2 F.4th 607, 612–13 (7th Cir. 2021). 

 

Steinke also asserts that he was entitled to a first-floor cell when he returned 

from the hospital, and Maltby and Hannon displayed deliberate indifference by 

refusing to reassign him to one. But, again, Steinke’s medical records do not reflect any 

restrictions or special accommodations recommended by the hospital staff upon his 

discharge. The correctional officers were entitled to defer to medical personnel. Giles, 

914 F.3d at 1049. And Steinke’s injuries—bruises and a strained neck—did not create a 

serious medical need. See Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 886, 891 (7th Cir. 2006) 

(bruising, split lip, and swollen cheek not objectively serious medical need). Further, 

Steinke’s evidence showed nothing more than that he felt pain ascending the stairs; he 
No. 21-2049 Page 4 

did not submit evidence that the movement exacerbated his injuries, delayed healing, or 

did anything but cause fleeting discomfort. See Lord v. Beahm, 952 F.3d 902, 905 (7th Cir. 

2020); Gabb v. Wexford Health Sources Inc., 945 F.3d 1027, 1034 (7th Cir. 2019). 

 

None of Steinke’s other arguments has merit. 

 AFFIRMED