Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02998/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02998-0/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 February 17, 2015*

Decided February 17, 2015 

Before 

 WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge 

 JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge 

 DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 14-2998 

CURTIS L. WESTBROOK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

BARCLAY COURT REPORTERS, and 

LITTLER MENDELSON, LLP, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Illinois, 

Eastern Division. 

No. 14 C 2365 

Gary S. Feinerman, 

Judge. 

O R D E R 

 After losing an employment-discrimination suit against the Boy Scouts of 

America, see Westbrook v. Boy Scouts of America, 560 F. App’x 574 (7th Cir. 2014), Curtis 

Westbrook brought this civil-rights suit against the law firm that represented the Boy 

Scouts and the court reporting agency it had hired. The district court dismissed the 

civil-rights suit for failure to state a claim. We affirm. 

 

*

 The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not 

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we 

have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 14-2998 Document: 15 Filed: 02/17/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14-2998 Page 2 

 At the core of this suit is Westbrook’s belief that he was wrongly denied an 

opportunity in the underlying suit to review a transcript of a deposition he had given. 

The transcript had been prepared by Barclay Court Reporters, which had been hired by 

the Boy Scouts’ counsel, Littler Mendelson. For reasons not reflected in the record, 

Westbrook was unable to review the transcript at Barclay’s Chicago office during the 

initial 30 days after it was made available. According to the district court’s docket sheet 

from the prior suit, however, he eventually was able to review the transcript after Judge 

Dow arranged for it to be made available at the federal courthouse in Indianapolis 

(closer to Westbrook’s home in Muncie). But Westbrook did not timely respond to the 

Boy Scouts’ motion for summary judgment, which the court eventually granted. He now 

alleges that his response was untimely because of the delay he experienced in being able 

to review the transcript. 

 The following year Westbrook sued Littler Mendelson and Barclay, asserting that 

they violated his civil rights by not allowing him to review his deposition transcript 

within 30 days of it being made available, see FED. R. CIV. P. 30(e)(1)(A). Judge Feinerman 

dismissed the case sua sponte for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The 

law firm and the court reporting agency are not state actors (nor were they alleged to 

have conspired with state actors), the judge explained, so Westbrook could not bring a 

claim against them under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or § 1985. Judge Feinerman added that the 

“gist” of Westbrook’s claim—that he was prohibited from reviewing his deposition 

transcript—was inconsistent with Judge Dow’s order in the underlying case allowing 

him to review the transcript in Indianapolis. 

 

On appeal Westbrook contends that he stated a claim by pleading that Barclay 

Court Reporters and Littler Mendelson, though private actors, conspired with Judge 

Dow and a district court deputy, both of whom he characterizes as state actors. But 

Westbrook did not state a claim because he failed to allege any factual basis for a 

conspiracy, Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 970-71 (7th Cir. 2009); Estate of Sims ex rel. 

Sims v. Cnty. of Bureau, 506 F.3d 509, 517 (7th Cir. 2007), let alone any wrongdoing by 

Judge Dow, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994) (federal judges’ 

“ordinary efforts at courtroom administration” do not provide evidence of bias); Starnes 

v. Capital Cities Media, Inc., 39 F.3d 1394, 1397 (7th Cir. 1994) (district judge’s adverse 

ruling did not demonstrate collusion with opposing party). 

Nor did Westbrook allege any violation of his constitutional rights or other 

federal statutes, as he must under § 1983. See Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc. v. Comm'r 

Case: 14-2998 Document: 15 Filed: 02/17/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14-2998 Page 3 

of Indiana State Dep't Health, 699 F.3d 962, 972 (7th Cir. 2012). Westbrook’s claim of a 

violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(2)—a rule established by the Supreme 

Court allowing deponents 30 days to review their deposition transcripts—cannot 

provide a basis for a § 1983 claim. See Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283-84 (2002) 

(whether violation may be enforced through § 1983 depends on whether Congress

intended to create private right). 

Finally Westbrook has not stated a claim under § 1985(3) because his complaint 

does not allege any racial or class-based motive for the defendants’ actions. See Griffin v. 

Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971); Kyle v. Morton High Sch., 144 F.3d 448, 457 (7th Cir. 

1998) (per curiam). 

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 14-2998 Document: 15 Filed: 02/17/2015 Pages: 3