Richard Branch v. Officer Black , 588 F. App'x 503 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                          NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
    To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Chicago, Illinois 60604
    Submitted January 6, 2015 *
    Decided January 7, 2015
    Before
    DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge
    RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
    JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge
    No. 14-1480
    RICHARD D. BRANCH,                                Appeal from the United States District
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                         Court for the Northern District of
    Illinois, Eastern Division.
    v.
    No. 12 C 6711
    CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLACK,
    Defendant-Appellee.                           Robert W. Gettleman,
    Judge.
    ORDER
    Richard Branch claims in this suit under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     that “C/O Black,” a guard
    at the Cook County Department of Corrections, was deliberately indifferent to his heart
    condition. The defendant sought dismissal on the ground that Branch had not exhausted
    his administrative remedies before filing suit, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and the district court
    granted that motion after conducting an evidentiary hearing, see Pavey v. Conley, 544 F.3d
    *
    After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
    unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.
    34(a)(2).
    No. 14-1480                                                                            Page 2
    739, 742 (7th Cir. 2008). Branch challenges this ruling on appeal, but he has not provided us
    with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal.
    The defendant had escorted Branch to the jail’s medical center and was with him
    in the waiting area when Branch complained of a headache and chest pains and asked
    that his handcuffs be moved from behind his back to the front so that he could take his
    heart medication. The defendant refused but another guard changed the handcuffs as
    requested. Branch took the medication but fainted after a nurse had placed an IV in his
    arm. He was then taken to the emergency room.
    At summary judgment the defendant guard argued that Branch had not
    exhausted his administrative remedies because he did not file an administrative appeal
    after his grievance about the incident was rejected. Branch replied that jail
    administrators did not timely respond to his grievance and then, when it was finally
    rejected, his counselor told him that submitting an administrative appeal would do no
    good because the time to appeal had already expired. The district court recruited counsel
    for Branch and, after the evidentiary hearing, ruled against him from the bench,
    explaining the decision orally. When Branch then filed a notice of appeal, the clerk of the
    district court informed him that he must request transcripts needed for appellate review
    within 14 days. Branch did nothing (even though his lawyer apparently had not been
    discharged). Four months later we reminded Branch that he still needed a transcript of
    the evidentiary hearing, and we explained the procedure for obtaining it. By then Branch
    was pro se, but still he did nothing.
    On appeal Branch argues that the district court erred in ruling for the defendant on
    the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust, but we are unable to review the court’s
    decision because Branch never obtained a transcript of the evidentiary hearing. See FED R.
    APP. P. 10(b)(2); Morisch v. United States, 
    653 F.3d 522
    , 529 (7th Cir. 2011); Learning Curve
    Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood Toys, Inc., 
    342 F.3d 714
    , 731 n.10 (7th Cir. 2003). And we will not give
    Branch additional time to secure the transcript, since five months have elapsed since we
    reminded him that it was needed, and yet he has not explained why he did not act.
    See RK Co. v. See, 
    622 F.3d 846
    , 853 (7th Cir. 2010); Learning Curve Toys, 
    342 F.3d at
    731 n.10.
    Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal. Given this disposition, we express no
    opinion about either the issue of administrative exhaustion or whether Branch’s
    complaint states a plausible claim of deliberate indifference.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-1480

Citation Numbers: 588 F. App'x 503

Judges: PerCuriam

Filed Date: 1/7/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024