Afte re xa m i ni ngthe b r i ef s an d the r ec o r d, we ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t o r ala r g um en t * is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. SeeF ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)
. 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d October8 , 20 08 * Deci ded Octobe r 24, 20 08

B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , Cir cu i tJudg e D IA N E P . W O O D , Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 07
- 2945 R O B E R T W. AL L E N, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant,
v. SC O T T W IN E , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fI l l i noi s. N o . 0 4- 12
- CJ P C lifford J. P ro u d , M agi s t r at eJudg e .

O R D E R I n thi s a cti on under 4 2 U.S
. C. § 1 983, I l l i noi s inm ate Robe rtA l l en cl ai m ed that Ch ad To dar o , a pr i so n gua r d, e ng ag ed i n r et al i at o r y c o nduc t afte rAl l enha d c o m pl aine d abo ut Todaro’ s har ass i ng co m m ents. All en al so cl ai m ed that tw o othe r guar ds shoul d have NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 07
- 2945 Page 2

i nter vened to st op the re tal i ati on, and that tw o m or e deni ed hi m due proc ess wh en the y p re sid ed ov er a d isc ip lin ar y h ea rin g on a tr u m p ed -u p ch ar ge br ou gh t b y T od ar o. A m ag i st r at e j udg e, pr es i di ngb y c o ns en t, g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o ra l lo fthe defe nd ants except Todar o, and a j ury f ound in Todaro’ s f avo r aftertr i al
. On appealA l l en ra i ses a num bero fi ssues , none ofwh i ch have m er i t. I. The f o l l o wi nga cc o unti s ta k enfr o m Al l en ’ s co m pl aint . Al l enwas a n inm at e atthe M enar d C or re cti onalCenterduri ng the per i od r el evantto thi s ca se. In J anuary19 99, Todaro bega n hara ssing All en afterhe r efused to part i ci pate in “hom ose xual gam es. ” A l l en’ s co m pla i nt char acte ri zes the hara ssm ent a s “ sexual, ” but does not furtherdescr ibe To dar o ’ s co nduc t ex ce pt to s aytha t he made co m m en ts a nd g es tu r es . Ano th erg ua r d, who i s no t a defendant, o bser ved and re port ed Todaro ’ s m i sco nd uct, and as a co nsequence T od aro w as reassign ed to anoth er cellhou se. W he n A ll en enc ou nt ered Tod aro i nt er m i tt en tly the r ea fte r, To dar o ha r as se d a nd thr ea te ne d hi m i n r et al i at i o n fo rc au singthe tr an sfe r. I n 200 3 All en was ass i gned to the sam e ce l lhouse as Todaro
. Afte r that, A l l en alle ge d , To d ar o b eg an h ar as sin g h im , an d th re at en ed to h av e h im se n t t o s eg re ga tio n . A l l en purpor tedl y s ubm i tte d seve ra lgr i evance s t o pri son author i ti es, wh i ch pro m pted T od ar o t o re ta liat e w ith tw o fa b ric at ed d isc ip lin ar y re p or ts ag ain st A llen
. A c c or d in g t o h is com p lai nt, A ll en i nform ed M aj or Scott W ine an d Sergean t Jam es K loth abou t Tod aro’s re tal i ato ryhar ass m ent. W i ne to l d A l l en thathe woul d not hav e a ny probl em s with T od ar o, an d K lot h sa id h e w ou ld te ll To d ar o t o lea ve A llen alon e, bu t n eit h er int er ve n ed
. A l l en had a hear i ng be f or e Li eutenant Crai g M i tchel land Corr ecti onalOffi cerM i hn Sco tt to ad d re ss on e o f T od ar o’s d isc ip lin ar y re p or ts , an d atth e h ea rin g M itc h ell alle ge d ly to ld All entha t he was g o i ngt o s en d Al l ent o s eg r eg at i o n fo rc au singpr o bl ems fo rhi s fr i en d T od ar o. A lth ou gh A llen h ad su b m itt ed th e n am es of h is w itn es se s b efo re h an d , M itc h ell and Sco tt re fused to cal lthem and w ro te i n thei r hear i ng r epor t that All en had not re quested anywitnes ses . All en was sent enced to di sci plinaryse gr ega ti on f ortwo m onths, l o s tc o mmi s s a r y p r i v i l e g e s f o rt wo mo n th s , a n d wa s a s s i g n e d a l o we rg r a d e s t a t u s f o rt wo m on th s. I n J anuary20 04 A l l en sued Todar o, W i ne, Klo th, M i tchel l, and Sco tt. At scr eeni ng, see 28 U
. S. C. § 1 915A, the di str i ct c ourtper m i tte d A l l en to pro ceed with hi s cl ai m s that ( 1) T od ar o h ad h ar as se d h im an d filed tw o fa lse d isc ip lin ar y re p or ts in re ta liat ion for h is grievanc es agains t Tod aro, (2) W ine an d K loth kne w abou t bu t fai led to stop Tod aro’s r et al i at i o n, a nd ( 3) M i tc he l la nd S co ttde ni ed All endue pr o ce ss a t th e di sc i pl i na r y he ar i ngN o. 07
- 2945 Page 3

A l though All en ti tl ed the m oti on a “Renewed A pp l i cati on f orA pp oi ntm ent o f 1 C ou n se l,” th e re c or d d oe s n otrefle c t a n y p re vio u s m ot ion req u es tin g c ou n se l. over w hich they pres ided
. Th e record show s tha t allpa rties prop erly con sen ted f or a m ag ist ra te j u d ge to p re sid e o ve r th e la w su it. I n A pri l20 07, A l l en m ove d fo r the a pp oi ntm ent o fco unsel
. He ar gued that he does 1 not re ad w el l, thatthe l i ti gat i on invol ved i m port ant c onst i tuti onali ssues , and that onl y a n att or ney c oul d obta i n the necess ar y e vi dence gi ven the A tto rneyGenera l ’ s purpor ted pol i cy ofham peri ng di sco ver y r equests bypri sone rs . The c ourtdeni ed A l l en’ s r equest w ith th e e x p lan at ion th at A llen h ad n otsh ow n th at h e m ad e re as on ab le a tt em p ts to ret ain cou ns el orthat he w as p reclud ed from doin g so. Th e cou rt ad d ed that A ll en ’s cl aim s w ere n otu n u su ally co m p lex , an d th at th u s fa r h is s u b m iss ion s h ad be en “a rt icu lat e, fu lly supp or ted byl ega lci tat i on a nd effecti ve. ” Later, afterthe defe nd ants had m ove d fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd were aw ai ti ng a rul i ng, A l l en so ught l eave to am end his co m pla i nt. All en wanted to abandon hi s r equest for inju n c tiv e re lief an d cla rify th at h e w as p ro c ee d in g a ga in st th e d efe n d an ts in t h eir i ndi vi dualc apa ci tyo nl y . He al so wi sh ed to c ha ng e th e to ta la m o unto fda m ag es he s o ug ht fro m ea ch defendant and speci fy a m ounts f orco m pensato ry, puniti ve, and psychol ogi cal damag es . T he c o ur t den i ed All en ’ s m o ti o n, no tingtha t i t was fi l ed sh o r tly b efo r e tr i ala nd over th ree years after the origi na l com p lai nt . Th e cou rt exp lai ne d that allof A ll en ’s pr o po se d c ha ng es wer e unne ce ss ary . I t was pl ain tha t All enwas pr o ce edinga g ains t th e d efe n d an ts ind ivid u ally , an d th e n ew am ou n ts of d am ag es h e p ro p os ed w er e w ell w ith in the o ri gi nalam ounts he so ught. All en fi l ed an o bj ecti on a sking the di str i ct c ourtto r evi ew th is or d er. The magi st r at e j udg e th eng r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o rW i ne a nd Kl o tho n the g r o und tha t th eywer e no t per so na l l y i nv o l ve d i n To dar o ’ s al l eg ed m i sc o nduc t an d ha d no o ppo r tu ni tyt o i nt er ve ne . T he c o ur t al so g r an te d s um m ary j udg m en t f o rM i tc he l la nd Sco tt, r eas oni ng tha t they c oul d not hav e depri ved A l l en o fdue proc ess bec ause he di d not ha ve a pr o te ct ed l ibe r tyi nt er es t atthe he ar i ng . T he c o ur t dec l i ne d, ho wev er, t o g r an t su m m ar y jud gm en t fo r T od ar o b ec au se iss u es of m at er ial fa c t re m ain ed
. A ga in, A llen co m p lain ed to th e d ist ric t c ou rtab ou t t h e m ag ist ra te j u d ge ’s ru lin g. A llen ge n er ally co n te n d ed th at h is c laim s a ga in st W in e, K lot h, M itc h ell, an d Sc ot t s h ou ld pr o ce ed to t r i al, a nd he a l so a r g ue d tha t th e co ur t ha d m i sr ea d hi s co m pl ainta nd o ve r l o o k ed a f o ur thc l ai m no t m en ti o ne d i n the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s sc r ee ni ngo r der
. Acc o r di ngN o. 07
- 2945 Page 4

to A l l en, hi s co m pla i nt al so al l ege d that in 199 9 he w as ass aul ted byTodaro , wh o gr oped his p en is and bu ttock s. A ll en asked the d istri ct cou rt to overrule the m agistrate j ud ge’s gr an t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t, an d to ac kn ow led ge th is a d d itio n al E igh th A m en d m en t c laim aga i nst Todar o. I t i s no t cl earwh etherthe m agi str ate j ud ge ordi str i ct j ud ge eve r re cei ved eit h er th is ob j ec tio n or A llen ’s o bj ec tio n to th e d en ial of le av e t o a m en d h is c om p lain t. I nde ed, whenAl l enl at erfi l ed a m o ti o n t o c o nt i nue the t r i alunt i lthe c hi efj udg e o fthe dist ri ct c ourtr ule d on thes e obj ecti ons, the m agi str ate j ud ge i ssued an o rderexpl ai ni ng tha t ther e were no m oti ons pend i ng chal l engi ng tho se rul i ngs, and that because the parti es conse nted to tr i albefor e the m agi str ate j ud ge, an a pp ealto the chi efj ud ge w as not av ai l ab l e. Al l enfi l ed no th i ngfur th erc o nc erni nge i th ero bj ec ti o n. A t the fi nalpre tr i alco nfe re nce, A l l en r enewed hi s m oti on f orappoi ntm ent o f cou ns el. In d en ying th e m otion for th e secon d tim e, th e cou rt ackn ow ledge d A ll en ’s l i m i ted educati on, but note d that during a re cent col l oquy with the cour t he had ar ti cul ate l y c om m unica ted hi s cl ai m s a nd hi s l ega lar gum ents. The c ourtco ncl ud ed that appoint ed counselwould not m ake a differ ence i n the outco m e o fthe case . A l l en the n fi l ed a thi rd m oti on f orappoi ntm ent o fco unsel
. Once m or e he ass er ted that he di d not r ead welland thus depended o n j ai l house l aw yer s foras si sta nce. He al so conte nd ed that he r equi re d counselto as si st w i th cr oss - exam i nati on. The m agi str ate j ud ge aga i n denie d his m oti on. The c ourtexpl ai ned that i t a l re ady had addresse d the i ssue of co uns ela nd tha t All enha d no t pr es en te d a nyne w re as o ns tha t woul d war r an t g r an tingthe m o ti o n. All enr es po nde d b y fi l i nga “ F o r m alCo m pl aintAl l eg i ngM i sc o nduc t to Thwar t th e Fai r A dm i ni str ati on o fJ usti ce. ” I n hi s s ubm i ssi on, wh i ch r equeste d rev i ew bythe dist ri ct co ur t, Al l ena l l eg ed th atthe magi st r at e j udg e was b i as ed. Al l enc o m pl aine d abo utv ar i o us advers e r ulings b ut pri nci pal l y was upset that the j ud ge had not o rder ed defe nse c ounselto provi de hi m a fre e co py ofhi s deposi ti on t ra nscri pt i nstea d ofj ust m aking the deposi ti on avai l abl e forA l l en to r evi ew under s up er vi si on. All en al so com pla i ned that the j ud ge had “a cc us ed pl aint i ffo fb eingb efo r e hi m i n the pa st . ” The magi st r at e j udg e den i ed th e m o ti o n, e xpl aini ngtha t th e di st r i ctj udg e no l o ng erwas i nv o l ve d in the pr o ce eding s an d th at A llen co u ld rais e h is a rg u m en ts in a n ap p ea l aft er tria l. The case pro ceeded to tr i alag ai nst Todar o. The m i nute o rderf orthe tr i alr efl ects th ato n the fi r stda y s i x inm at e- wi tn es se s te st i fi ed f o rAl l env i a vi deo

- co nfer en ce . Onthe seco nd day, however, the m agi str ate j ud ge dispense d w i th the te sti m ony oftwo other i nm ate s be cause ther e were techni caldi ffi cul ti es w i th the vi deo- confer ence equi pm ent a t the pr i son w here theywere housed and the j ud ge bel i eve d thei r tes ti m ony w oul d beN o. 07
- 2945 Page 5

cumul at i ve . At th e co nc l us i o n o fthe t r i al, the c o ur t i ns truct ed th e j ur y t o g i ve the testim ony of w itness es w ho tes tified via video th e sam e con side ration as th ose w ho w ere p resen t. Th e j ud ge refused to gi ve an i ns tru ction on com p en satory d am ages, over A ll en ’s obj ecti on. The j ud ge i nstea d tol d the j ury that com pensato rydam age s were not avai l abl e, buta dded th atthe j ur y was r equi r ed to a war d no m i na lda m ag es i fi t f o und fo rAl l ena nd w ou ld th en h av e t h e o p tio n of aw ar d in g p u n itiv e d am ag es . T h e jur y fou n d for T od ar o. A l l en appeal ed. Both the dist ri ct c ourtand thi s co urt denie d his m oti on f or appo i nt m en t o fa ppel l at e co uns el
. Al l enfi l ed a “P r ac i pe” a ddr es se d t o the c l er ko fthe dist ri ct c ourtas ki ng tha t the tr i altr anscr i pt be desi gnate d as par t o fthe re cor d on appeal al o ngwi tho th ermate r i al s. Al l en, tho ug h, a ppar en tly made no e ff o r t to o r derthe tr an sc r i pt fr o m the c o ur t r epo r te r, a nd ne i th eri s th er e an y i ndi ca ti o n in the r ec o r d tha t he ask ed the m agi str ate j ud ge f oras si sta nce in obt ai ni ng i t. All en has not ask ed thi s co urt to or d er th e p re p ar at ion of a t ria l tra n sc rip t. II. On a ppea lAl l enfi r sta r g ue s th athe ne ve rc o ns en te d t o pr o ce ed be f o r e th e m ag i st r at e j udg e. Be ca us e th i s co nt en ti o n, i ft r ue , woul d i m pl i ca te the fi na l i tyo fthe j u d gm en t b efo re u s, w e a d d re ss it first
. SeeRice v. Sunris e E xpres s, Inc. , 20 9 F
. 3d 1008 , 10 13 n. 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. A m agi str ate j ud ge m ay conduct al lpro ceedi ngs in a c i vi lcas e a nd ente r fin al jud gm en t if th e p ar tie s c on se n t. 28 U .S.C . § 63 6(c )(1) ; see R ice, 209 F.3d at10 13 n .7. A sig n ed co n se n t fo rm is su fficie n t p ro of of c on se n t, s e eKal i s v. Colgat e - Palm ol i veCo. , 23 1 F
. 3d 10 49 , 105 9-6 0 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); Lovelace v. D all , 82 0 F
. 2d 223, 22 5- 26 ( 7th Ci r. 19 87) ( per c u ria m ), an d in t h is c as e t h er e a re w rit te n, sign ed co n se n ts from all p ar tie s. A llen as se rt s in hi s r epl y b ri efthatthe si gnatur e o n the f or m i s no t hi s, but he f ai l ed to r ai se thi s f actual c on te n tio n in t h e d ist ric t c ou rt, an d th u s c an n otrais e ith er e. SeeRo di Yachts, Inc. v. Nat’l M arine, Inc. , 98 4 F
. 2d 880, 88 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( “A pp el l ate co urts r evi ew fi nd i ngs o ff act ma d e b y t r i a lc o u r t s ; wi th i mma t e r i a le x c e p t i o n s th e y d o n o tma k e th e i ro wn fi nd ings .
. . . ”). A l l en’ s co nsent und er§ 636( c) al so re sol ves hi s r el ate d content i on that the di str i ct j u d ge sh ou ld h av e in te rv en ed as th e la w su it p ro gr es se d
. InA llen ’s v iew , th e t ria l sh ou ld ha ve bee n sta yed un tilthe d istri ct cou rt ruled on his obj ection s to the m agistrate j ud ge’s or ders gr anti ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent a nd denyi ng l eave to am end his co m pla i nt. But after conse nti ng to pro ceed be f or e the m agi str ate j ud ge i n l i eu o fthe dist ri ct j ud ge, see 2 8 U. S
. C. § 6 36( c) , A l l en co uld notas k the di str i ct j ud ge to re vi ew hi s obj ecti ons to the m agi str ate j u d ge ’s ru lin gs , cf. id. § 6 36 (b )(1)
.N o. 07
- 2945 Page 6

The sam e ho l ds true with r espectto A l l en’ s s ubm i ssi on a l l eging tha t the m agi str ate j ud ge w as bi ase d. A l l en ci tes no author i ty, and w e hav e found none, sugg est i ng tha t a dist ri ct j ud ge w oul d rev i ew a com pla i nt o fj ud i ci albi as dir ecte d against a m agi str ate j ud ge p re sid in g u n d er § 63 6(c ). Cf. W he e l e rv. So uthl and Corp
. , 875 F
. 2d 1246 , 12 51 ( 6th Ci r. 19 89) ( up ho l di ngma g i s t r a t e j ud g e ’ s r ej e c t i o n o fc l a i m un de r2 8 U. S
. C. § 4 5 5 tha th e wa s b i a s e d)
. I t i s co ncei vabl e, as the defe nd ants note , thatA l l en’ s bi as cl ai m m i ght a l so be c onst rued as a m o ti o n un der§ 6 36 ( c) ( 4) , a pr o vi si o n tha t al l o ws a di st r i ctj udg e to v ac at e a r efer r alt o the m ag ist ra te j u d ge u p on a sh ow in g of e x tr ao rd in ar y c irc u m st an c es . B u t § 63 6(c )(4) is ra re ly u se d , see 12 C HA RLES A LL EN W R I GHT, A RTHU R R. M ILLER & R I CHA RD L. M AR CUS, F ED ERAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 30 71 .3 ( 2d ed. 19 97) , and, r ega rdl ess , A l l en’ s a l l ega ti ons ofbi as ar e unf ounded , notextr aor dinar y. He neverexpl ai ned w hat he m eant w hen he s ai d that the m agi str ate j ud ge “accuse d” hi m o fappearing be f or e the j ud ge previ ousl y, but a j ud ge w oul d not be di squal i fi ed fro m hear i ng a m att erj ust be cause a l i ti gant i n the past had o ther b u sin es s b efo re th e s am e jud ge . Se eLa c D u F l am b e au Band of La keSu pe r i orChippe wa Indi ans v. Stop Tre aty Abuse- Wis consin, Inc. , 99 1 F
. 2d 1249 , 12 55- 56 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) ( expla i ni ng tha t i nfo rm ati on j ud ge gained about partyfro m pri orpro ceedi ng ca nnot be bas i s for disqual i fi cati on)
. And A l l en’ s co ntenti on that the m agi str ate j ud ge exhibi ted bi as by not or deri ng defense counselto supply a co py ofhi s deposi ti on i s m er i tl ess : j ud i ci alr ulings alo n e a lm os t n ev er co n st itu te a va lid ba sis for d isq u alific at ion
. Liteky v . U nited Sta tes , 51 0 U
. S. 540, 555 (1994 ). A s h is s ec on d gro u n d for a p p ea l, A llenarg u es th at th e m ag ist ra te j u d ge sh ou ld have enl i ste d counselto as si st hi m . The di str i ct c ourthas the di scr eti on t o re crui t a vo lu n te er at to rn ey for a p ro se litiga n t in a c ivil c as e. 28 U .S.C . § 19 15 (e)(1 ); P rui ttv. M ote, 50 3 F
. 3d 64 7, 6 54 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( enb an c)
. We r ev i ew a de ni alo fa mot i o n fo rr ec r ui tment of c ou n se l for ab u se of d isc re tio n . P rui tt, 503 F.3d at 658
. W e ask w he th er the d istri ct cou rt proper l y c onsi dered the f ol l owing questi ons: “( 1) has the ind i gent pla i nti ffm ade a re aso nabl e a tte m pt to o btain counselo r been effecti vel y pr ecl ud ed fro m doi ng so ; and i fso , (2) g ive n th e d ifficu lty of th e c as e, d oe s t h e p lain tiff a p p ea r c om p et en t t o litig at e it hi m sel f ?” Id. at 65 4. T h e m ag ist ra te j u d ge iss u ed fou r or d er s a d d re ss in g A llen ’s re q u es ts for c ou n se l. In the fi rs t o rder, the m agi str ate j ud ge note d that All en had not dem onst ra ted thathe t ri ed to retain cou ns el orthat he w as p reven ted from tryi ng . Th e cou rt also observ ed that A ll en ’s cl ai m s were not parti cul ar l y c om ple x, and that A l l en was com petent to l i ti gat e them hi m se l f
. T hi s r ea so ni ngt r ac k s th e appr o pr i at e l eg als ta nda r d a s l at erc l ar i fi ed i n o ur enb an c o pi ni o n in P rui tt . A llen h as n otp er su ad ed u s t h at h e s at isfie d th e t h re sh oldN o. 07
- 2945 Page 7

re quir em ent o ftr yi ng to r eta i n counselhi m sel f, wh i ch w as suffi ci ent r eas on f orthe j ud ge to d en y a ll of A llen ’s re q u es ts for c ou n se l. See Ja ckson v. Ko tter, 541 F.3d 688 , 700 (7th C ir. 20 08 ). A d d itio n ally , th e m ag ist ra te j u d ge ev alu at ed A llen ’s c om p et en c e a n d rea so n ab ly concl ud ed that A l l en was capabl e o fpro ceedi ng witho ut co unselgi ven hi s dem onst ra ted ab i l i tyt o a r ti cul at e hi s cl ai m s, a ppl y the l aw, a nd fi l e appr o pr i at e m o ti o ns . We pe r ce i ve no ab us e o fdi sc r et i o n. W e turn, then, to A l l en’ s thi rd appel l ate cl ai m . He i nsi sts thatthe m agi str ate j ud ge f ai l ed to r eco gni ze that hi s co m pla i nt i ncl ud ed a fourth cl ai m ar i si ng under the Ei ghth A m endm ent. Afte r the m agi str ate j ud ge had denied sum m ar y j ud gm ent forTodaro o n A l l en’ s r eta l i ati on cl ai m , A l l en i nfo rm ed the cour t that he al so w as accusi ng Todar o of sexual l y abusi ng hi m i n 199 9. But atthe scr eeni ng st age the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not per cei ve a fourth cl ai m , and f orthe next y earand a hal fA l l en sa i d nothi ng. Our own de nov o re vie w of A llen ’s c om p lain t, s e eSa nde rs v. Sh e ahan , 198 F.3d 626 , 626 (7th C ir. 1999), p er su ad es u s t h at th e c om p lain t in c lu d es n o s u c h cla im
. A llen ’s c om p lain t a lleg es on ly se xua lha r as smentc o ns i st i ngo fwor ds an d g es tu r es r athe rtha n a ny phy si ca labus e. And w hi l e a n al l ega ti on o fse xual abuse ofa pri sone r w oul d stat e a cl ai m under the Ei ghth A m en d m en t fo r c ru el a n d u n u su al p u n ish m en t, ve rb al h ar as sm en t d oe s n ot . Se eD e waltv. C a rter, 22 4 F
. 3d 607, 61 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( “St anding al one, si m ple ve rba lhar ass m ent doe s no t const i tute crueland unusual pu ni shm ent, depri ve a pri sone r ofa prot ecte d l iber ty i nter est, or d en y a p ris on er eq u al p ro te c tio n of th e la w s.” ). Inan y e ve n t, an y c laim for a b u se w ou ld cer tainl y hav e be en ti m e-bar re d. In I l l i noi s the st atute o fl i m i tat i ons f orcl ai m s under § 1 983 i s tw o yea rs . S e eFa r r e l l v. M cDonough , 96 6 F
. 2d 279, 28 0- 82 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92)
. All en filed th is law su it in 20 04 , fi ve ye ar s a fte r th e a lleg ed se x u al a b u se in 1 99 9. It is und er sta nd abl e, then, thatA l l en would have o m i tte d his cl ai m o fse xual abuse. All en ’ s f o ur tha r g um en t al so c o nc erns the c o m pl aint . He co nt en ds th atthe m ag i st r at e j udg e sh o ul d ha ve g r an te d hi m l ea ve t o a m en d hi s co m pl aint . We r ev i ew the d en ial of le av e t o a m en d for a b u se of d isc re tio n . Soltys v. C oste ll o , 520 F.3d 737, 743 (7th C ir. 20 08 )
. Afte ra n a ns werha s be enfi l ed, a pl aint i ffmay amend th e co m pl ainto nl y wi ththe c ou rt ’s le av e, w h ich sh ou ld be free ly giv en w h en j u st ice so req u ire s. F ED . R. C IV . P. 15 (a). Bu t l eave to am end i s inapp ro pri ate wh en the m ova nt undu l y del aye d bringi ng the m oti on or w h en th e a m en d m en t is fu tile
. Sol tys , 520 F.3d at74 3. A llen es se n tia lly so u gh t t o c lar ify th at h e w as su in g e ac h d efe n d an t in d ivid u ally an d n otin a n y off icia l ca p ac ity , an d h e w an te d to ch an ge th e a p p or tio n m en t o f d am ag es . A s the co urt note d i n i ts or der, A l l en fi l ed thi s m oti on s hor tl y b ef or e t ri aland ove r thre e ye ar s a fte r b rin gin g s u it. M or e im p or ta n tly , th e p ro p os ed ch an ge s w er e u n n ec es sa ry . It w as al re ady appare nt thatA l l en was proc eedi ng ag ai nst the defendants i n thei r i nd i vi du alN o. 07
- 2945 Page 8

capaci ty, and the new dam age am ounts A l l en pro posed were w el lwithi n the or i gi nal am ou n ts h e s ou gh t. T h e c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc re tio n . Se eCam pani a Mgm t . Co. v. R o o ks, P itts & P o ust, 29 0 F
. 3d 843, 85 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( expla i ni ng tha t a m endm ent which p ro p os es im m at er ial c h an ge is fu tile an d p ro p er ly d en ied ); s e eal s o S oun d of M us i c Co. v. M i nn. M i ni ng & M

f g. Co. , 4 77F
. 3d 91 0, 9 23 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( ex pl aini ngtha t amendment w hich w ou ld n ot su rvive sum m ary j ud gm en t is futile)
. That br i ngs us to the m ai n thr ust o fA l l en’ s a pp eal
. In hi s fi fth cl ai m o fer ro r, A l l en conte nd s that the m agi str ate j ud ge shoul d not hav e g ra nted sum m ar y j ud gm ent forW i ne, K lot h, M itc h ell, an d Sc ot t. W e re vie w a gr an t o f su m m ar y jud gm en t d e n ov o. W yni nge rv. New VentureGear, Inc. , 36 1 F
. 3d 965, 974 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. S um m ar y j ud gm ent i s a pp ro pri ate w hen “the re i s no ge nuine i ssue as to any m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m att ero fl aw . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 56 (c ); s e eM ont ano v. Ci ty of Chi
. , 53 5 F
. 3d 558, 568 (7th Cir. 2008). As t o W i ne a nd Kl o th, Al l enc l ai m ed th atthe y f ai l ed to i nt er ve ne t o pr ev en t T od aro’s retali atory con d uc t. To h old a p erson l iable und er § 1983, how ever, the p lai nt iff m us t prov e tha t the de fend an t w as p erson all y i nv olved i n th e d ep rivation of a c on st itu tio n al rig h t. Jo hn son v. Sn yd er, 44 4 F
. 3d 579, 58 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. And to be per so na l l y r es po ns ibl e f o rs o m eo ne e l se ’ s co nduc t, the de fen dan t m us t ha ve kno wn ab o ut th e c on d u c t a n d eith er fac ilita te d , en d or se d , or d elib er at ely ign or ed it. Id. The de fen dan t m ust hav e had a “r eal i sti c o pp or tuni ty” to pre vent the c onduct but then del iber ate l y o r re c kle ss ly d isr eg ar d ed th e p lain tiff’s co n st itu tio n al rig h ts . M il le r v. Sm ith , 22 0 F
. 3d 491, 49 5 (7th C ir. 2000). A l l en pro du ced no e vi dence ofper sonali nvol vem ent b y W i ne o r K l oth. All en ass er ts that Todaro engag ed i n furtherm i sco nd uct afterA l l en i nfo rm ed W i ne and Kloth of th e pr i o rha r as sment . Buta s th e m ag i st r at e j udg e o bs er ve d, the r e i s no e vi den ce tha t W i ne and K l oth w er e pr ese nt duri ng the l ate r i nci dents, and thus no evi dence thatthey re al i sti cal l y c oul d have done anythi ng to st op Todaro fro m wri ti ng di sci plinarychar ges o r oth erw ise harass ing A ll en . In an y even t, W ine an d K loth cou ld n ot be li able for T od aro’s c on d u c t u n les s T od ar o v iola te d A llen ’s c on st itu tio n al rig h ts , see Ha rper v . Alb ert, 40 0 F
. 3d 10 52 , 106 4 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Fi l l m orev. Page, 3 58 F
. 3d 49 6, 5 06 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) , a nd he r e, the j u ry fou n d th at T od ar o w as n otliab le for th e u n d er lyin g re ta liat or y c on d u c t. W i thr es pec t to M i tc he l la nd S co tt, Al l enc l ai m ed th atthe y v i o l at ed hi s r i g htt o due proce ss by re fusi ng to cal lhi s witnesse s duri ng the di sci plinaryhear i ng o verwh i ch they presi ded
. But t o est abl i sh a du e pr oce ss cl ai m under § 1983 , a pla i nti ffm ust fi rs t e stabl i shN o. 07
- 2945 Page 9

th at h e w as d ep riv ed of a c on st itu tio n ally p ro te c te d int er es t in life, lib er ty , or p ro p er ty . Lek a s v. B riley, 4 0 5 F
. 3 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 )
. O nly a ft e rthe p l a i nt i ffh a s e s t ab l i s he d a p ro te c tib le in te re st by sh ow in g t h at h e s u ffer ed an at yp ica l an d sign ifica n t h ar d sh ip w ill th e c ou rtco n sid er w h at p ro c es s w as d u e. Id. at60 7- 08. I n thi s ca se Al l enwas pl ac ed i n di sc i pl i na r y s eg r eg at i o n fo rt wo months a nd dur i ng th att i m e l o stc o m m i ss ary pr i vi l eg es a nd was a ss i g ne d a l o werg r ade s ta tu s. Ho wev er, he did notsufferan a typi caland si gni fi cant hardshi p by l osing co m m i ssa rypri vi l ege s o r b ein g a ss ign ed a low er gra d e s ta tu s. Se eThom as v. Ram os , 130 F.3d 754 , 762 n.8 (7th C ir. 1997 )
. Nor di d he suffersuch har dship so l el y b y b ei ng co nfined to disc i plinaryse gr ega ti on for th e b rie f p er iod atiss u e in th is c as e. See Sa nd in v . Co nn er, 515 U .S. 47 2, 48 6 (1 99 5); Le kas , 40 5 F .3d at60 8-1 0; Hos ki ns v. Le ne ar, 395 F.3d 37 2, 37 5 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). Fi nal l y, i n hi s s i xth and l astar gum ent, A l l en co ntends thathe was deni ed a f ai r tr i al on hi s r eta l i ati on cl ai m ag ai nst Todar o. All en co ntends thatthe m agi str ate j ud ge f ai l ed to ca l lt wo o fhi s wi tn es se s, a l l o wed s ev er alo fhi s wi tn es se s to t es ti fy v i a vi deo whi l e wea r i ng p rison clothing an d restraints, and f ail ed to gi ve a j ury inst ruc tion on com p en satory d am ag es . W e do no t ha ve the t r i alt r an sc r i pt. T he l i ti g an ts ha ve the b ur deno fo r der i nga ny ne cess ary tran script s and m aking arran gem en ts to p ay for th em un d er F ED . R. A PP . P. 10 (b ). A party who f ai l s t o do so waive s a ny ar gum ent that c annot be m eani ngfully r evi ew ed w ith ou t t h e t ra n sc rip t. Pigg i ev. Cot t on , 342 F.3d 66 0, 66 3 (7 th C ir. 20 03 ); W o o ds v . T hieret, 5 F .3d 24 4, 24 5 (7 th C ir. 19 93 ). O u r ab ility to ev alu at e A llen ’s c on te n tio n s a b ou t t h e t ria l is th u s l i mi t e d , b u tt o th e e x t e n tth a twe c a n f o l l o w h i s c o n t e n t i o n s wi th o u ta t r a n s c r i p t, we p erceive no error. W e r ev i ew f o rabus e o fdi sc r et i o n the manne ri n whi cha t r i alj udg e co nduc ts the p ro c ee d in gs . E stat e of M o relan d v . D ieter, 395 F.3d 74 7, 75 3-5 4 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Tes t a v. Vi l l
. of M undele in , 89 F. 3d 443, 44 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96)
. All en ar gues that the m agi str ate j ud ge offer ed no e xplanat i on f orhi s r efusalto cal ltwo ofA l l en’ s t ri alwitnes ses . Bu t nei therA l l en’ s br i ef northe re cor d on appealdem onst ra tes thathe obj ecte d at t ri alto the excl usi on o fthes e w i tness es, and i t i s wel lse ttl ed that obj ecti ons not ra i sed i n the dist ri ct c ourtar e wai ved on ap p ea l. Belom v. Nat’l Futures Ass’ n , 28 4 F
. 3d 795, 79 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02)
. M or eov er, al though A l l en i nsi sts i n hi s br i efthatthe tes ti m ony ofthes e witnesse s was “v i tal ” a nd would not have du pli cate d otherte sti m ony, he ha s f ai l ed to di scl ose wh at the m i ssing witne sse s w oul d have s ai d. Thus, we cannot concl ud e that the m agi str ate j ud ge abused hi s di scr eti on by excl ud i ng the se w i tness es up on l earni ng tha t t echni caldi ffi cul ti es preve nted them fro mN o. 07
- 2945 Page 10

te st ifyin g t h at d ay . See P ink ston v. M a dry, 4 40 F
. 3d 87 9, 8 90 n. 15 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) ( ex pl aini ng th at tria l j u d ge m ay p re c lu d e c u m u lat ive or re p et itiv e t es tim on y); Israel Trav el A dv iso ry Serv., Inc. v. Israel Ident ity Tours, Inc. , 61 F. 3d 1250 , 12 60 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( expla i ni ng tha t par ty com pla i ni ng o n appeal abo ut excl usi on o fwitnes s m ust di scl ose subst ance ofo m i tte d testim ony and de m ons trate th at ex clusion affecte d a sub stan tial right). N eit h er ca n w e a gr ee w ith A llen th at th e m ag ist ra te j u d ge err ed by p er m itt in g h is i nm at e- wi tn es se s to t es ti fy v i a vi deo

- co nfer en ce whi l e wea r i ngpr i so n c l o th i nga nd re str ai nts. W e no te as an i ni ti alm att erthatA l l en has not dem onst ra ted thathi s witnesse s d id w ea r p ris on clo th in g a n d res tr ain ts or th at th e jur y w as ab le t o s ee th em . Se eFo unt ai n v . U nited Sta tes , 21 1 F
. 3d 429, 43 4- 35 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) ( defe nd ant’ s f ai l ure to i denti fy e vi dence that he was shack l ed i n the prese nce o fthe j ury precl ud ed hi s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o f counselcl ai m bas ed on co unsel ’ s f ai l ure to obj ect to that shackl i ng)
. But, ev en so , wh en an inm ate is suing p rison gua rd s, th ere is not hin g prejud ici al about all ow ing othe r prisone rs to ap p ear in prison clothing an d restraints bec au se th e j ury alread y know s tha t the plaintiff an d th e w itn es se s a re inm at es . W oods , 5 F.3d at24 9; Ho llo w a y v . Alex a nd er, 95 7 F
. 2d 529, 53 0 (8t h C ir. 19 92 ); see also Fountain , 21 1 F
. 3d at 435- 36 ( concl ud i ng tha t defendant char ged with m urdering guard co uld nothave bee n prej ud i ced by appeari ng be f or e j ury i n shack l es b ec au se j u ry alre ad y k n ew h e w as a p ris on inm at e a t t h e t im e o f th e a lleg ed cr im e). M or eov er, a w i tness m ay tes ti fy v i a vi deo “[ f ] orgo od cause i n com pel l i ng ci rcum sta nces an d w ith ap p ro p ria te sa feg u ar d s.” F ED . R. C IV . P. 43 (a). T h e u se of th is t ec h n olo gy is p er m iss ible as a m at te r of d isc re tio n . See Tho rnto n v . Sny der, 428 F.3d 690 , 697-99 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) (fin d in g n o d u e p ro c es s v iola tio n w h er e t h e in m at e-p lain tiff h ad to at te n d h is c ivil tr i alv i a vi deo

- co nfer en ce )
. In Thor nt on , we up hel d a di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o al l ow i nm ate s t o tes ti fy v i a vi deo- confer ence i n partbec ause the inm ate s were “sca tte re d al lo ver the s tat e. ” Id. at6 98
. As we r ec en tly i te r at ed, t r an spo r tingi nm at es t o c o ur t i s co st l y a nd p ot en tia lly d an ge ro u s. B arnes v. Black, N o. 08
- 1703 , 20 08 W L 42067 94, at* 2 ( 7th Ci r. S ept. 12 , 2 00 8)
. T he r ec o r d he r e do es no t di sc l o se the magi st r at e j udg e’ s r at i o na l e f o rha vingthe i nm ate - w i tness es tes ti fy b y v i deo- confer ence, but nei theri s there any i nd i cati on that All en obj ecte d to the pr oce du re . The r eco rd does sho w thatthe j ury w as i nstr ucted to gi ve vi deo te st im on y a n d in-p er so n te st im on y e q u al c on sid er at ion
. A llen d oe s n otoffe r an y s p ec ific r ea so n why the v i deo

- co nfer en ce a r r an g ementwas i na dequa te o rpr ej udi ci al, a nd thus he ha s no t sh o wn th atthe magi st r at e j udg e ab us ed hi s di sc r et i o n. That l eave s o nl y All en’ s co ntenti on that the m agi str ate j ud ge shoul d have g i ven a n i nstr ucti on o n com pensato rydam age s. W e r evi ew j ury i nstructi ons de novo , and re ver se on ly if an err or p rej u d ice d th e p ar ty . C a lho un v. R a m sey, 408 F.3d 37 5, 37 9 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ). In or der t o re cove r com pensato rydam age s, however, a pri sone r cl ai m i ng tha t he suffer edN o. 07
- 2945 Page 11

re tal i ati on a t the hands ofa pri son guar d m ust pro ve, i n l i ght o f42 U
. S. C. § 1 997e ( e) , that h e s u ffer ed p h ys ica l inju ry . See P earso n v . W elbo rn , 471 F.3d 732 , 744 (7th C ir. 2006); Cal houn v. D eTell a , 3 1 9 F
. 3 d 9 3 6 , 9 4 0 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 )
. T hu s , a s the ma g i s t r a t e j ud g e r e c o g ni z e d, because o fthe abse nce o fpro ofo fa physi cali nj ury, co m pensato rydam age s would not ha ve bee n av ail able on A ll en ’s retali ation claim
. Th e fai lure to give a com p en satory d am age instru ction w as no t an error. Acc o r di ng l y, the j ud g men ti s AF F I RMED.