Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03405/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03405-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Submitted May 26, 2015*

Decided June 10, 2015 

Before 

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge 

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge 

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-3405 

LAVELL C. HERBERT, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ELSWORTH SMITH, JR., et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 13 C 6122 

Matthew F. Kennelly, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

Lavell Herbert appeals a final judgment entered upon a jury verdict for two 

Chicago police officers and the City of Chicago in a suit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

asserting claims of false arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Herbert 

contends that he was denied a fair trial because the defendants lied on the stand and 

fabricated evidence, but we cannot begin to assess that contention because Herbert has 

not supplied a transcript of the trial. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(b); Hicks v. Avery Drei, LLC, 654 

 

*

 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)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 

Case: 14-3405 Document: 20 Filed: 06/10/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14-3405 Page 2 

F.3d 739, 743–44 (7th Cir. 2011); Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 

714, 731 n.10 (7th Cir. 2003); Woods v. Thieret, 5 F.3d 244, 245 (7th Cir. 1993). He asked the 

district court for a copy of the transcript at public expense, but the district court 

determined that Herbert had not satisfied his obligation to identify a colorable issue to 

present on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (indigent defendant entitled to free transcript if 

judge certifies that appeal is not frivolous). And in any event Herbert does not point to 

any specific evidence or statements produced at trial that he believes were improper. 

Herbert also asserts that his lawyer in his § 1983 suit was constitutionally 

ineffective and that the defendants withheld a video of his arrest that, he believes, they 

were obligated to produce. But in this civil suit Herbert does not have a constitutional 

right to effective assistance of counsel. See Stanciel v. Gramley, 267 F.3d 575, 581 (7th Cir. 

2001). And as a civil plaintiff he is not entitled to the video, particularly because he does 

not assert that he ever requested it or that the defendants relied on it. See FED. R. CIV. P.

26(a); cf. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (recognizing criminal defendant’s 

constitutional right to receive exculpatory evidence from prosecutor). 

We have considered Herbert’s remaining arguments and none has merit. 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-3405 Document: 20 Filed: 06/10/2015 Pages: 2