Case Explained: BRAD PASSWATER v. TRICIA PRETORIUS, et al

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-07-23 The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants Dr. Daniel Rippetoe and Deputy Warden Tricia Pretorius in a civil rights action brought by incarcerated plaintiff Brad Passwater under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment due to deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Regarding Dr. Rippetoe, the court applied the standard that prison medical professionals are liable only if their conduct demonstrates an absence of professional judgment such that “no minimally competent professional would have so responded,” a threshold higher than mere negligence or failure to follow best practices. The court held that while Dr. Rippetoe failed to conduct a post-medication assessment as required by policy, the record lacked evidence that he actually read the medical report indicating Passwater’s adverse reaction, nor was there proof that any minimally competent physician would have necessarily intervened upon reading it under those specific circumstances. Consequently, the court found no evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to conclude Dr. Rippetoe acted with deliberate indifference. Regarding Deputy Warden Pretorius, the court applied the rule that an official may be liable for systemic policy violations if they are aware of a lapse in enforcement and fail to act. While the court acknowledged evidence suggesting Pretorius knew suicide companions were not adhering to a two-hour shift policy and failed to correct it, the claim failed on the element of causation. The court determined that Passwater’s severe self-inflicted injuries were caused by the intervening, superseding act of the specific suicide companion assigned to him who refused to stand and observe through the cell window as instructed. This intervening act severed the causal link between Pretorius’s alleged policy failures and the specific harm suffered by Passwater. The practical consequence is that the judgment in favor of the defendants stands, and Passwater receives no relief; the case is closed with no further proceedings on these claims. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.