Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01480/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Officer Black
Appellee
Richard Branch
Appellant

Document Text:

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,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLACK,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 12 C 6711

Robert W. Gettleman,

Judge.

O R D E R

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).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

 

Case: 14-1480 Document: 30 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pages: 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. 

Case: 14-1480 Document: 30 Filed: 01/07/2015 Pages: 2