Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-18-03146/USCOURTS-ca7-18-03146-0/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 December 19, 2019*

Decided February 21, 2020 

Before 

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge 

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge 

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3146 

JIMMIE JORDAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CHRISTOPHER SHERROD, et al., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

 Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Illinois. 

No. 3:15-cv-97-DGW 

Donald G. Wilkerson, 

Magistrate Judge. 

O R D E R 

Jimmie Jordan appeals from an adverse judgment entered after a jury’s verdict in 

favor of prison officers and supervisors whom he sued for violating the Eighth 

Amendment by causing him to suffer broken ribs and contusions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

He also challenges the district court’s denial of his post-judgment motion for a new 

trial. We affirm the judgment on the verdict because Jordan, who did not raise in the 

district court a challenge to the verdict, has not shown that upholding the verdict would 

*

 We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and 

record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not 

significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION 

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

Case: 18-3146 Document: 43 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pages: 3
No. 18-3146 Page 2 

result in a miscarriage of justice. Also, because Jordan did not file an amended notice of 

appeal after the district court denied his motion for a new trial, we cannot review his 

challenge to that post-judgment decision. 

The trial transcript reveals the following. (Jordan did not submit the trial 

transcript to this court, but we have exercised our discretion under Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 10(e)(2)(C) to supplement the record with it sua sponte.) While 

approaching Jordan’s cell during a sweep, Officer Christopher Sherrod thought that he 

saw Jordan flushing drugs down the toilet. According to Sherrod, when he ordered 

Jordan to submit to a strip search, Jordan became belligerent. Jordan, however, denied 

this. According to Jordan, Sherrod and other officers beat him, then took him to another 

ward. Jordan added that supervisors watched the beating and failed to stop it. He could 

not identify these officers or supervisors because he became unconscious during the 

incident and because the officers were wearing tactical gear that covered their faces. 

Jordan’s medical records showed that he could not move his legs or speak when he 

arrived at the new ward. A prison doctor sent Jordan to an outside hospital, where he 

was diagnosed with broken ribs and chest contusions. 

The jury found in favor of the defendants on Jordan’s Eighth Amendment claims 

that the officers used unlawful force or failed to intervene to help him. After Jordan 

filed this appeal from the adverse judgment on the jury’s verdict, he filed a motion for a 

new trial, which the district court denied. As mentioned earlier, Jordan did not amend 

his notice of appeal after the district court denied his new-trial motion to include that 

ruling for appellate review. 

On appeal, Jordan first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

jury’s verdict. Because Jordan did not move for judgment as a matter of law, we could 

reverse only if we determined that no evidence supported the verdict and that 

upholding it would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a), 

S.E.C. v. Yang, 795 F.3d 674, 680 (7th Cir. 2015). After reviewing the transcripts, 

however, we conclude that the evidence is consistent with the verdict. Jordan bore the 

burden of proving that the defendants used unreasonable force on him and that the 

supervisors ignored that use of force. See Sanchez v. City of Chi., 700 F.3d 919, 926 n.3 

(7th Cir. 2012). Yet nothing in the transcript required the jury to conclude that the 

defendants’ actions or omissions caused Jordan’s broken ribs or chest contusions. The 

officers and supervisors testified that they did not beat Jordan, and Jordan testified that 

he could not identify any of the officers or supervisors who he believes caused his 

Case: 18-3146 Document: 43 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pages: 3
No. 18-3146 Page 3 

injuries. Given this record, the jury was entitled to credit the officers’ denials of Jordan’s 

accusations. See United States v. Ridley, 826 F.3d 437, 442 (7th Cir. 2016). 

Next, Jordan contends that his trial counsel was ineffective. But this argument 

cannot justify a remand because “ineffective assistance is not a ground for reversal in a 

civil matter.” Pendell v. City of Peoria, 799 F.3d 916, 918 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). 

Finally, Jordan raises two procedural challenges that we may not review. He 

argues that during voir dire the district court should have screened prospective jurors 

for racial bias, and that during jury deliberations the court mishandled a question from 

the jury. Jordan does not contend that he raised these issues before the court entered 

judgment on the verdict, so they are not included in his appeal of the judgment. And 

though he did raise these arguments in his post-judgment motion for a new trial, he did 

not file an amended notice of appeal after the court denied that motion, so we may not 

now review those challenges. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 

134, 147 (2012). 

 AFFIRMED 

Case: 18-3146 Document: 43 Filed: 02/21/2020 Pages: 3