Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01936/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01936-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted August 18, 2016*

Decided August 18, 2016

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐1936

LAZERRICK COFFEE,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

EDWARD D. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 12‐C‐1416

James E. Shadid,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Lazerrick Coffee, an Illinois inmate, sued several correctional officers under

42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that they violated the Eighth Amendment during a cell

extraction. The district court granted summary judgment to one defendant and after

Coffee presented his case‐in‐chief to a jury, granted judgment as a matter of law to the

remaining defendants. See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a).   

                                                 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-1936 Document: 30 Filed: 08/18/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15‐1936    Page 2

Coffee appeals only the grant of judgment as a matter of law. But to properly

assess this argument, we would need to review the evidence Coffee presented at trial.

See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)(1) (explaining that the district court may grant judgment as a

matter of law if the evidence presented at trial does not provide “legally sufficient

evidentiary basis to find for the party”). Coffee, however, failed to submit the trial

transcript to this court. See FED. R. APP. P. 10(b)(2) (“If the appellant intends to urge on

appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the

evidence, the appellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to

that finding or conclusion.”). He did request the transcript from the district court, but the

court denied that request, and Coffee did not renew his request in this court or obtain the

transcript using other means. Moreover, the appellees’ response brief warned Coffee of

the potential consequences of failing to provide a transcript. Thus, we decline to exercise

our authority to order Coffee to supplement the record on appeal. See FED. R. APP.

P. 10(e)(2)(C); Morisch v. United States, 653 F.3d 522, 530 (7th Cir. 2011); Learning Curve

Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 731 n.10 (7th Cir. 2003).   

Because the absence of a transcript precludes our review, Coffee’s appeal is

DISMISSED.   

Case: 15-1936 Document: 30 Filed: 08/18/2016 Pages: 2