Background
Detectives investigating an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility approached David Watts, another inmate, to obtain information about a murder. Watts feared retaliation and filed a suit under Section nineteen eighty-three seeking damages for the risk of harm, though no physical injury occurred. The district court denied the detectives’ motion for summary judgment and largely sealed the litigation to protect Watts’s identity. The detectives appealed, arguing qualified immunity.
The court’s reasoning
The court assumed that the detectives were deliberately indifferent to the risk of harm but found that no physical injury occurred. Under Section nineteen hundred ninety-seven, Section E, a prisoner cannot recover for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury. Furthermore, qualified immunity requires that the right violated be clearly established at the time of the events. The court found no decision clearly establishing that exposing a prisoner to a risk of physical harm that never comes to pass violates the Constitution. The court distinguished Monfils, noting that the plaintiff in that case was killed, whereas Watts suffered no physical harm. The court also noted that the informant’s privilege belongs to the prosecutor, not the informant, and the Constitution does not guarantee a right to confidentiality or witness protection.
Watts has not identified a violation of a clearly established right, so defendants are entitled to summary judgment.
Watts v. Jones, No. 25-1046 (7th Cir. May 29, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision clarifies that prisoners cannot recover nominal or punitive damages for exposure to risk of harm from other inmates unless they suffer physical injury and can point to a clearly established constitutional right.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download