Watts, a Wisconsin prisoner, sued two detectives (Kevin Jones and Mark Smit) under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that they exposed him to risk from other inmates by making it known that he was cooperating with law enforcement. Watts claimed he was threatened and harassed but suffered no physical harm.

The District Court denied summary judgment for defendants, and they appealed, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity (which allows an interlocutory appeal). The 7th Circuit reversed.

The court recognized that the 8th Amendment generally bars corrections officials from “the wanton infliction of psychological pain” (Calhoun v. DeTella, 319 F.3d 936, 939 (7th Cir. 2003)). The court also noted that prior cases had found a constitutional violation where harm did actually occur, especially where there had been a promise of confidentiality[H1.1] (Monfils v. Taylor, 165 F.3d 511 (7th Cir. 1998)). However, the court distinguished those cases on the grounds that in this case defendants had a legitimate purpose: investigating a crime, and their actions were thus not “wanton,” there was no promise of confidentiality, and no actual harm occurred.

Since the plaintiff could not identify any case holding that detectives investigating a crime who put a prisoner in fear of injury without any actual injury violated the constitution, the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

NOTE: There is also an interesting discussion in an Appendix regarding the 7th Circuit’s strong preference that adult litigants use their actual names rather than “John Doe.”