## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 1762 R ONAL D R OM ANELLI, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. D AL I A S UL I EN E AND C HRISTO PH ER K UHL, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- cv-19

— Step hen L . C ro ck er, Magis trate Judge .
A RGUED M AY 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2010

Befo re R IPPLE, K ANN E , an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . T his ap p eal arises ou t of a 42 U .S.C . § 19 83 law su it in w h ich p ris on er R on ald Ro m an el l ic l ai m ed th atDa l i a S ul i en e, a j ai l phy si ci an, an d Chr i st o p herKuhl, a j ai ls er g ea nt, v i o l at ed hi s r i g ht to re cei ve acceptabl e m edi calcare du ring hi s pre tr i al detenti on a t Col um bi a County Jail. Rom anel l ial l ege d th atdur i ng hi s i nc ar ce r at i o n, Dr
. S ul i en e an d S er g ea nt Kuhl wer e del ibe r at ely i ndi ffer en t to w ha t Ro m an el l ic o n-2 N o. 08

- 1762 si dered se ri ous m edi calneeds, part i cul ar l y with re spect to hi s nee ds f orCro hn’s dise ase tr eatm ent a nd rep l acem ent e yeg l ass es. A t the co ncl usi on o ftr i al, the j ury re tu r ne d a s pec i alv er di ctfi ndi ngtha t ne i th erof the al l ege d h ealth conce rns const i tuted a ser i ous m edi cal co ndi ti o n. Ro m an el l ir ai se s two i ss ue s o n a ppea l : tha t th e di st r i ctc o urt erred in de ny i nghi s th r ee pr e- tr i almot i o ns for cou rt-app ointed cou ns el, and that the d istri ct cou rt er re d i n adm i tting e vi dence ofhi s pri orfel ony convi ct i o n s f o r i mp e a c h me n tp u r p o s e s . We a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D T h en -C h ief D ist ric t Ju d ge B arb ar a C ra b b , w h o in it i ally presi ded i n thi s ca se, gr anted Rom anel l il eave o n Ma r c h 1 3 , 2 0 0 7, t o p r o c e e d o n h i s c i v i lr i g h t s c l a i ms unde r § 1 98 3 ag ains t Dr
. S uli en e, S er g ea ntKuhl, a nd se ve r alotherde fen dan ts
. Be f o r e an y o fthe na m ed defen dants answ er ed the com pla i nt, Rom anel l i fi l ed a m ot i on f orco urt- appoint ed counsel
. J ud ge Crabb denie d h is m ot ion w ith ou t p rej u d ice on M a rc h 20 , sta tin g t h at it w as pr e matur e t o ma k e s uc h a de t e r mi na t i o n, a nd that und erJac ks on v. County of M cL e an , 95 3 F
. 2d 1070 , 1072 ( 7th Cir
. 19 92) , Rom anel l if ai l ed to dem onst ra te that h e had m ade r ea so nabl e e ff ort s to s ec ur e co uns elo n h i s o wn, orco nverse ly, thathe was pre vente d fr om doi ng so . (A p p ella n t A p p . at 2 2-2 4.) Les s th anthr ee m onths l at er, Ro m an el l ifi l ed a se co nd m o ti o n fo r c o urt
- appo i nt ed co uns el
. Ro m an el l ic o nte nde d tha t due t o hi s i ndi g en ce a nd i nc ar ce r at i o n h eN o. 08

- 1762 3 woul d b e unabl e to a dequ ately r epr es en t hi m se l f
. The dist ri ct c ourtde n ied h i s m oti on o n J une 15, with Ju d ge C ra b b c o n c l u d in g t h at R om an elli w as su fficie n tly cap able of su ch repres en tation u n d e r th e law
. Th e cou rt r e as on ed th at th e a lleg at ion s m ad e b y R om an elli inh is co m pl aintwer e bo th“ com pr eh en sibl e an d l i te r at e, ” an d th at th e c as e w as fairly st ra igh tfo rw ar d . ( Id
. a t 26
. ) The cou rt ad d ed that un d er Lu ttrell v. N ick el , 12 9 F.3 d 933, 936 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) , ci vi ll i ti gants a re n ot, as a m att ero f ri ght, enti tl ed to cour t- appoint ed counsel i n federa lco urt, and that purs uant to Far m erv. Haas , 99 0 F
. 2d 319, 32 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 93) , o nl y und er“e xcepti onalci rcum sta nces” w i l l a c o ur ta pp o i ntc o un s e lf o r i nd i g e ntl i t i g a nt s . ( App ell an t A p p . at 26.) J ud g e C r a b b obse rved that i f a p lai nti ffl i ke Rom anel l ir ecei ved appoi nted counsel m erely because ofhi s ind i gence and i ncarc er ati on, an “ov e r whe l mi ngn umb e r o fp r o s e p r i s o ne r l i t i g a nts w oul d becom e e nti tl ed to co unsel
. ” ( Id . at 2 7.) T h e d efe n d a n t s m ov ed for s u m m ar y jud gm en t in October20 07. That m oti on was gr anted i n part and denied inp ar t o n Jan u ar y 10 , 2 00 8, th e re su lt b ein g t h at R om an elli su cce ssfully survived Dr. Suli en e’s and Sergea nt K uh l’ s m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. H i s ca se aga i nst them th en p ro c ee d ed to tria l. Rom anel l i fi l ed hi s thi rd and fi nal m oti on for appoi ntm en t o f co u n s e l o n Fe b ru ar y 4 , 200 8. Insu p p or t o f h is m oti on, Rom anel l ipoi nted out th at al though he had not d ep ose d the defendants, theyhad schedul ed hi s deposition , a n d “ it w ou ld n ot be eq ua ll y ri gh t for th e plaintiff to proce ed to tr i alwit h a b lind eye. ” ( Id
. at28
. ) H e a l so4 N o. 08

- 1762 cl ai m ed th athi s r ec en t d ia g no si s o fde pr es si o n a nd pr e s c r i pt i o n o f a n a nt i

- de pr e s s a nt g a v e r i s e to exc e ptio n ally ch an g e d c irc u m st an c es . Jud ge C ra b b d en ied h is m o ti o n o n F eb r ua r y 1 2. Re l y i ngo n Pr u i t tv. M ote, 50 3 F. 3d 647, 65 4- 55 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) ( en banc) , the c ou rtr easone d that Ro m anell ihad com petentl y r epres ented h im se lf in t h e c as e t h u s fa r , h e h ad su c c es sfu lly defe ate d D r. S u li ene’ s a nd S er gea nt Ku hl ’ s m oti ons f or sum m ary j ud gm ent, he ha d been pro vi ded detai l ed i nstr ucti ons w i th r egard t o the a pp l i cabl e g ove rni ng l aw an d t ria lpro cedures, and the case was not f actual l y o r l eg al l y c o m pl ex . J udg e Cr ab b al so o bs er ve d th at “[ t] he whol e po i nto f[ taking a nt i

- depr es sa nt s] i s to a l l o w the per so n t ak i ng th em to thi nka nd a ctr at i o na l l y . ” ( Appel l an t App. a t 29
. ) W i thr es pec t to R om an el l i ’ s o th erc l ai m , the co ur t no te d tha t Ro m an el li had b ee n fr ee thr o ug ho ut th e p ro c ee d in gs to d ep o s e t h e d efe n d an ts , an d th at if cost w as th e issue, “ap p ointing co u n s e l for th e m ere p u rp os e o f sh iftin g c os t o f litiga tio n to t h e la w ye r is nei therr equi re d nor appropri ate
. ” ( Id . at 3 0.) A l lpart i es subsequentl y c onse nted to the re fer ra lo f the c ase to M agi str ate J ud ge St ephen Crocker, and tr i al com m enced on M ar ch 17, 2008
. Bef or e t ri al, the cour t r ead a se r i es o fi nt r o duct o r y i ns truct i o ns t o t he j ur y, i nc l udi ng i ns t r uc t i o nsr e g a r d in gw i tn e s s c r e dib i l i t y . T he c o ur ts t a t e d: A w itn es s m ay be d isc re d ite d by co n tr ad ict or y e viden ce , o r b y e vi den ce tha t ats o m e othe r t i m e th e w i tness has sai d ordone s om ethi ng , or h as f ai l ed to sa y o r do s o m ethi ng, tha t i s i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe w i tness ’ s pre sent tes ti m ony.N o. 08

- 1762 5 If you be liev e a n y w itn es s h a s b ee n d isc re d ite d , i t is up to y ou to deci de how m uch ofthe tes ti m ony of that w i tness yo u bel i eve . I fa wi tn es s i s sh o wn to ha ve g i ve n f al se t es ti m o ny knowingl y, tha t i s, vo l untari l y a nd i ntenti onal l y, about any i m port ant m atter, yo u have a r i ght t o dist rust the w i tness ’ s t est i m ony about othe r m att er s. You m ay rej ect al lthe testi m ony ofthatwitnes s o r you m ay choos e t o bel i eve so m e o r al lo fi t. ( Id . at 4 .) Ro m an el l ide l i ve r ed hi s o pen i nga r g um en ts fi r st
. In the p ro c e ss of in tr od u c in g h im se lf to t h e jur y, R om an elli anno unc ed th at he was a co nv i ct ed cr i m i na l
. Dur i ngthe d efe n d an ts ’ op en in g st at em en ts , ho w ev er , cou n se l m er ely state d that the j ury w o u ld be ap p rised of Rom an ell i’ s c rim in al re c or d d u rin g t h e c ou rs e o f th e t ria l. Fol l owing openi ng ar gum ents and outsi de the pr ese nce ofthe j ury, J ud ge Crock erheld a co nfe re nce with Ro m an el l ia nd the de fen dan ts
. Dr
. S ul i en e an d S er g ea nt K u h l m ov ed u n d er R u le 6 09 of th e F e d e r al R u les of E vid en c e t h at th ey be p er m i t te d to im p ea c h R om an elli wi thhi s pr i o r fel o ny c o nv i ct i o ns f o rb ai lj um pi nga nd seco nd

- degre e s exual assaul t, as w el las hi s m i sdem eanor convi ction s fortwenty- tw o counts ofi ssui ng worthl ess checks , r esi sting/ obs tr ucti ng a n offi cer, and f ai l i ng to r epo r t a s a s ex o ffen der
. The c o ur t co ns i der ed an d den i ed th e defen dan ts ’ mot i on to us e Ro m an el l i ’ s co nvi cti ons f orr esi sting/ obs tr ucti n g a n offi cero r f ai l ure to re portas a sex o ffender, fi nd i ng tha t th e probat i ve6 N o. 08

- 1762

va l ue was o ut wei g he d b y the po te nt i alf o r unf ai r pr ej ud ice. H ow ever, the cou rt all ow ed the u se of Rom a ne ll i’ s othe r convi cti ons. T h en , d u rin g R om an elli’s ca se - i n - c h ief, ina st ra te gic deci si on a pp ar entl y desi gned to pre em pt the defe nse fro m cas ting hi s pri orco nvi cti ons i n a ne gat i ve l i ght, R om a n e l li focu se d on an d ex p lain ed atlen gt h h is ve r si o n o fthe f ac ts unde r l y i ngthe s ex ua la ss aul t co nvi cti on. H e then detai l ed hi s v er si on o fwh at happ ened du ring hi s s tayatthe Col um bia C ounty J ai l
. H e cl ai m ed that he suffer ed fro m re peti ti ve, debi l i tat i ng bou ts o f diar rhea, but that Dr. Sul i ene and S er gea nt K uhl ignored hi s r eque st s form edi calat tenti on. Rom anel l ist ate d that D r. Suli ene decl i ned to perf or m any l ab t est s unl ess he pa i d for the m up- fr o nt
. Ro m an el l idi d no t pr es en t any witnesse s t o cor robor ate hi s v er si on o fthe eve nts. O n c r o s s - e x a mi na t i o n, th e d e fe n d a n t s a t t e mp t e d t o i mp ea c h R om an elli by cit in g n u m er ou s in c o n sis te n c ies in hi s te sti m o ny, h is p r i o r wri tt ena nd o r als ta te m en ts , a nd hi s e vi denti ar y docum ents. Rom anel l iacknow l edged t h e fa c t t h at h is for m al w rit te n co m p lain ts ab ou t h is Cr o hn ’ s di s e a s e we r e s ub mi t t e d af t erh e w as tr ansfer re d to a d iffer en t fa c i l i t y . (A p p ella n t A p p . at 6 .) Ro m an elli als o c on c ed ed th at D r. Su lien e h ad in fa c t m et w ith h im on s eve ra lo ccasi ons pri orto hi s t ran sfe r i n or der t o add re ss hi s a l l ege d disco m f or t, and that he was sim p ly u n h ap p y w ith D r. Su lien e’s d iag n os is. ( Id .) W i th r espectto Rom anel l i ’ s pri orco nvi cti ons , defense counselm er el y c onfi rm ed w i th Rom anel l ithathe ha d i n f ac t be enc o nv i cted fori ss ui ngwor th l es s ch ec k s an dN o. 08

- 1762 7

se x u al a ss au lt. M or eo ve r, Ju d ge C ro c ke r sp ec ifica lly in st ru c te d th e jur y on h ow it sh ou ld co n sid er t h e e vid en c e o f R om an elli’s p rior cr im es : Y ou h av e h ea rd ev id en c e t h at R on ald R om an elli has be en co nvi cted o fa cri m e. You m ay consi der th i s e vi dence onl y in deci ding w hetherRona ld Rom anel l i ’ s test i m ony i s truthful i n w hol e, i n part, ornotatal l
. You m ay not con sid erthi s e vi dence f orany othe r pu rpos e. (A p p ella n t Se p ar at e A p p . at 1 69 .) Du ring Dr. S uli ene’ s a nd S er gea n t K u hl ’ s pre senta ti on ofthe case , t h ey provi ded o ver w hel m i ng ev i dence to contr adic t Rom anel l i ’ s t est i m ony, i ncl ud i ng but not l i m i ted to the fact that Se rg eant K uhl prom ptl y r espo nde d t o Ro m an el l i ’ s co m pl aint s an d f o l l o wed up w i th m edi calst affo n R om anel l i ’ s be hal f; Dr. S uli ene was f am i l i arwith Cro hn’s dise ase and at the c oncl usi on o f each o f three exam i nati ons she found him to be heal thy, w ell

- h yd ra te d , an d ac tu ally ga in in g w eig h t; R om an elli re fused a bl oo d testwh en j ai lst affi nfo rm ed hi m that hi s j ai l ac co unt woul d be deb i te d th e ch ar g e f o r the se rv ice ; Ro m an elli co n t i n u ed to u se th e b ala n c e o f h is acco unt to purchas e j unk f oo d and otherspi cy f oo d fr o m the j ai lc o m m i ssa r y ; a nd Ro m an el l ine ve r s o ug ht to o bt ain medi ca ti o n fr o m ho m e o r fr o m the j ai lc an t ee n . ( Id
. a t 6- 8. ) The c o ur t l at ero bs er ve d tha t “there w as evi dence co ntra di c t i ng e ver y m aj or pre m i se th at R om an ell i offered i n h is testim ony an d t h ere w ere n u m er ou s p oin ts o n w h ich R om an elli w as ca u gh t in i nconsi ste nci es that re aso nabl y c oul d have be en vi ew ed as sel f

- ser vi ng and i ntenti onal
. ” ( Id . at 6 -7.)8 N o. 08

- 1762 Throughout the t ri al, the cour t a nd the defe nd ants’ att or neys a dopted an i nfo rm alapproa ch to the proce eding s i n o r dert o a cc o m m od ate Ro m an el l i
. F o r e xampl e, de spi te b eings uppl i ed w i thde ta i l ed i ns truct i o ns on how to su bpoena witnesse s, Rom anel l ichos e no t to subpoena a ny witne sses, or ale rtthe cour t that h e m igh t w ish to p re se n t a d d itio n al w itn es se s a t t ria l. N ev er th ele ss , th e d efe n d a n t s a lso p er m itt ed R om an elli to que st i o n the m a nd o th erj ai l stafffr ee l y abo utthe f acts gi vi ng r i se to hi s cl ai m s. W hen Rom anel l ipre sente d hi s o w n or alte sti m ony, the defendants’ at torneys did not i nter rupt hi m with obj ecti ons, and the c ou rt di d not str i ctl y ho l d Rom anel l ito the Feder alRule s o fEvi d en ce. The c ou rt and counselal so too k a r el axed approach to Ro m an el l i ’ s us e o fexh ib i ts
. F i na l l y, J udg e Cr o ck ere xp lain ed h is ru lin gs in c ar efu l d et ail to R om an elli. The j ury re turned a speci alve rdi ct fi nd i ng tha t Rom anel l i ’ s Cro hn’s dise ase and hi s nee d f orr epl acem en t ey eg l as se s di d no t co ns ti tu te serio us medi ca lc o ndi ti o ns . Acco r di ng l y, the j ur y d id no t addr es s th e q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n gR o ma n e l l i ’ s s t a t e o fmin d o r d a mage s. The di str i ct c ourten te re d j ud gm ent in f avo r of Dr. S uli ene a nd S er gea nt Ku hl o n M ar ch 24, 20 08. R om an elli sim u lta n eo u s l y filed a n ot ice of ap p ea l, a Rule 59 m oti on f ora new tr i al, and an al ternati ve m o ti o n f o r a j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e r o fl a w. We s t a y e d the appe alpe ndi ngthe di stri ctc o ur t’ s di spo si ti o n o fthe Rule 59 m oti on. Rom anel l ipre sente d vi rtual l y i denti cal ar gum ents i n hi s Rul e 5 9 m ot ion as those thatar e no w bef or e us. T h e dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed Rom anel l i ’ s Rul e 5 9 m oti on in al lr espect s o n J une 17, 20 08.N o. 08

- 1762 9 II. A NA LYSIS R om an elli argu es on ap p eal that th e d istri ct cou rt er re d i n its deni alo fhi s m oti ons f orco urt- appoint ed counsel, cl ai m i n g th at the o utcom e would have bee n differen t h ad the di str i ct c ourtgr anted hi s m oti ons. Rom anel l ial so ar gu es that J ud ge Crock er ’ s deci si on t o al l o w e v i d e n c e o ft wo fe l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s f o r i mpe a c hm ent purpos es w as unfai rl y pr ej ud i ci al
. W e t ake ea ch ar gum en t i n tur n.
A
. C o urt-A pp o inted C o un sel There i s no co nsti tuti onalo r statutor y r i ght t o counsel i n f e d er al c ivil c as es . P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 656; s e e Jo h n s on v. D ough ty, 4 3 3 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 06)
. N eve rthel e s s , th e di s t r i c tc o ur th a s di s c r e t i o n un de r 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 915( e) ( 1) to r eq u es t co unself oran ind i gent l i ti gant. Pr u i tt, 5 03 F. 3d at 654 ( ci t i ng Johns on , 43 3 F
. 3d at 1006 ; Fa rm er, 99 0 F
. 2d at 32 3). W h en a pro se l i ti gant subm i ts a requ est for court-ap p ointed cou ns el, the d istri ct cou rt m ust fi rs t co nsi der whether the ind i gent pla i nti ffhas m ade r eas o nabl e at te m pts t o s ec ur e co uns elo n h i s o wn, orco nver sel y, i fhe ha s be en p recl ud ed fro m doi ng so . Id
. N ext, the d ist ri ct c ourtm ust e val uate the c om ple xi ty o fthe c as e an d wh ethe r the pl aint i ffa ppea r s co m pet en t to litiga te it on h is ow n . Id
. at65 4- 55. W e review the d is t rict court’s d en ialof a li tigant ’s re quest forappoi ntm ent o fco unself oran abuse o fdi scr etio n . Ja ckson v. Ko tter, 541 F.3d 688 , 699-700 (7th Cir. 2008); P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 658.10 N o. 08

- 1762 O u r re vie w of th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n is d efe re n tia l. P rui tt, 50 3 F
. 3d at 658- 59. “ ‘ A co urt does not abuse i ts disc re ti on unl ess . . . ( 1) the r ec or d contains no evi dence upo n whi c h the c o ur t c o ul d ha v e r a t i o na l l y b a s e d i ts dec i si o n; ( 2) the de ci si o n i s ba se d o n a n e r r o ne ou s co nclusion of l a w ; (3) the d ecision is bas ed on clearly erro n e o u s f ac tu al fin d in gs ; or (4) t h e d ec isio n cle ar ly appears arbi tr ar y. ’ ” Id. at 658 ( q uot i ng M us s e rv. Ge nt i va He al t h S e r vs . , 35 6 F
. 3d 751, 75 5 ( 7th C ir. 20 04) ( al ter ati on i n o r i g i na l ) )
. W e do no t en gage i n a n inde pen den t anal ysi s o fthe pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m s a nd co m petency; i nstea d ou r task is to d eterm ine “w he th er the d istrict cou rt appli ed the cor re ct l ega lst andard and re ac h ed a r easonab l e dec isio n base d on f acts supporte d by the r ecor d.” Id . “ W e a sk not w hetherthe [ the j ud ge] was ri ght, but wh etherh e w as re aso nabl e. ” Id . (alte ra to n in o rig in al) ( quo ting Fa rm er, 990 F.2d at 322 ) (qu otations om itted ). A lthou gh w e m ay d eterm ine th at th e d istri ct cou rt abused i ts dis c re tion, r eve rs alo fa dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni al ofco unseli s r ese rv ed f orwh en the l i ti gant can es tablish ac tu al p rej u d ice
. Id
. at65 9. W e fi nd thatthe dist rict co urt did notabuse i ts disc re ti on in denyi ng R om anel l i ’ s m oti ons f orco urt- appoint ed cou ns el. In resp ons e to each m otion , t he district cou rt appli ed the c or rect l ega lst andard and car efully a nal yze d the f acts as theyexis ted atthe ti m e o fthe parti cul ar m o ti o n. W i th r es pect t o Rom anel l i ’ s fi rs t m oti on, the dist ri ct cour t d eterm i ned that Rom anel l ihad not dem onst ra ted that he m ade r eas onabl e e ffor ts to s ecure hi s o w n l aw yerN o. 08

- 1762 11

o r tha th e h a d b e e n pr eve nt e d fr o m do i ngs o . R e g a r dl e s s , th e c o u r t n o t e d th e c o r r e c t l e g a l s t a n d a r d i n t he ev e n tR o ma n e l l iwe r e t o ma k e s u c h a s h o wi n g : “ the cour t mus t c o ns i de r whe the r pl a i nt i ff i s ab l e to re prese nt hi m sel f gi ven the l ega l diffi cul ty of t h e case, and i f he i s not, w hether havi ng a l aw yer w ou ld m ake a di ffer en ce i n the o ut co m e o fhi s lawsui t. ” ( Appel l an t A p p . at 2 3 .) B ec au se atth e t im e R om an elli m ad e h is m otion non e o f th e d efend an ts ha d fil ed an an sw er, the di str i ct c ourtpro perl y c oncl ud ed t h at the c ase was sti l li n i ts i nfa ncy, ther eby m aking i t im possibl e a t that j uncture to m ake any accura te det er m i nati on r eg a r d i n gR o ma n e l l i ’ s ab i l i t i e s o r th e o u t c o me o fth e l a wsui t. There f or e, we hol d that the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo f the fi rs t m oti on without prej ud i ce was r eas onabl e. W hen the dist ri ct c ourtaddress ed Rom anel l i ’ s s eco nd mot i o n fo r the a ppo i nt m en t o fc o uns el, i t f ound th atRo m an el l iha d m etthe thr es ho l d b ur deno fs ho wi ng a n i n ab i l i t y t o fi n d a l a wy e r w i l l i ngto r e p r e s e n th i m. The c o ur t th encons ider ed th e co m pl ex i tyo fthe case and c on c lu ded thatthe l ega li ssues were “not ove rl y di ffi cul t. ” ( Id . at 2 6.) T h e c ou rtop in ed th at “[a ]ll pl aint i ffne eds t o s ho w to pr ev ai lo n h i s claim i s th athe ha d a s er i o us medi ca lne ed an d tha t d efe nda nt s co nsci ousl y di sr ega rded that need .
. . . ” ( Id
. at26

- 27. ) Based on i ts re vi ew o fthe ple ading s, the cour t dete rm i ned th at R om an ell i cou ld com p eten tly r ep resen t him self. B e c a u s e th e c o u r tf o u n d th a tn o e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u msta nces exis ted thatwould m er i t a pp oi ntm ent o f c o un s e l, i tde ni e d the m oti o n. We a g r e e a nd c o nc l ud e the s eco nd deni alwas re aso nabl e.12 N o. 08

- 1762 I n consi deri ng Rom anel l i ’ s th ird m oti on f orco urtappoint ed counsel, the dist ri ct c ourtag ai n con sid er ed the c om ple xi ty of the ca se and Rom anel l i ’ s abi l i ty to l i ti gat e. Rom anel l ial l ege d that he h ad bee n unabl e t o d ep os e t h e d efe n d an t s an d th at h e n ee d ed a law ye r in or d er to d o s o. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtw as u n p er su ad ed : The r ec or d .
. . r eve al s that pl ai nti ffhas com pete n tl y r epres ented hi m sel fthus f ar . A l lo fhis subm i ssi ons have been coheren t a nd ar ti cul ate
. Pl ai nti ffhas succes sfully defeat ed defe nd ants’ m oti on f or s u m m ar y j ud gm ent .
. . . H e has bee n pr o vi d ed wi thi ns truct i o ns r el at i ngt o the conduct oftr i aland i s pre sentl y t akin g steps to pr e pa r e f o r t r i a l
. . . . T he g o v e r ningl a w o fthi s ty pe of cl aim
. . . w as ex p lai ne d to plaintiff
. . . . Plaintiff i s u n i que l y qua l i fi ed to t es ti fy t o hi s unde r st an di ng o ft h e r e a s o n h e w a s d e n i e d t r e a t me n t
. In s u m, Ican c oncei ve ofno re aso n w hy pl ai nti ffcannot pr o se cut e hi s cl ai m s o n h i s o wn. ( Id
. at29
. ) The co urt al so add re sse d Rom anel l i ’ s cl aim th at he was i ncapabl e o fr epres enti ng hi m sel fbec ause he had bee n pres cribed and was tak i ng an anti

- depress a nt med i c a t i o n. I t de t e r mi ne d tha t s uch f a c t s di d not giv e ris e t o th e “ e x c e p tio n al c irc u m st an c es ” n ot ed in Fa rm er, 99 0 F
. 2d at 322. Li k e th e di st r i ct co ur t, we se e no r eason w hy Rom anel l ico uld nothave deposed the d efendants o r how hi s m edi cati on ad ve rs el y a ffecte d his abi l i ty to l i ti gat e, and w e t ake not e o fthe cour t’ s obser vati on that su c h m ed ica tio n m igh t a c t u a lly h av e a c c ru ed to h is benefi t. The di str i c t c ou rtappli ed the appropri ate l ega lN o. 08

- 1762 13 sta nd ar d, and i ts deci sio n w as re aso nabl e in l i ght o f the f a c t s s up po r t e d b y the r e c o r d. A dd i ng fu rther cre dence to o ur deci si on i s the f act that i n i ts or der denying Rom an ellia new tr i al, J ud ge Crock er add re sse d a ce ntra li ssue that i s in fro n t of u s now . J ud ge C ro c ke r c o m m en te d th at “[t ]h e fa c t t h at R om an elli u ltim at ely lost at tr i al
. . . wi l lno t ca l li nt o que st i o n the p ro p rie ty oft h e c o u rt ’s d ec isio n to d en y h im co u n se l.
. . . H av in g s ee n a n d h ea rd R om an elli’s p er for m an c e a t t ria l, Ihave no doubt thathe was s uffi ci entl y intel l i gent, lite ra te , art icu lat e, te n ac iou s a n d as se rt ive ad eq u at ely to re prese nt hi m sel f
. ” ( A pp el l ant Ap p . a t 12. ) A s t o w hetherther e was a re aso nabl e li kel i hood thatthe outcom e co uld have bee n d i ffer ent had an att or ney b een ap p oin te d for R om an e l l i, se e P rui tt, 5 03 F
. 3d at6 59 , the c ou rtsa id , “as a n eu tr al ob se rv er o fth e e n tir e t ria l, I ca n n otim ag in e a rea l i s t i c s c en ar io in w h ich R om an elli c ou ld h av e p re va iled .” (A p p ella n t A p p . at 1 3.) W e a gr ee. W e fi nd thati n each i nstance the dist ri ct c o u r ta p p l i e d th e c o r r e c tl e g a ls t a n d a r d t o th e c i r c um s t a n c e s o fthe c a s e a tth e t i me o fe a c h mo t i o n . At no t i m e di d Rom anel l isho w thathe was incapabl e o f adequat ely r epres enti ng hi m sel f
. Thi s was notan ove rl y di ffi cul t ca se. T hro ughout the p re tr i aland tri alpro ceed ings, Rom an ell i rep eated ly sh ow ed that he u nd e rst o o d the f ac ts a nd l eg alpr in ci pl es o fhi s ca se , a s demons t r a t e d b y h i s d e fe a t o fth e d e fe n d a n t s ’ mo t i o n f o r s u mm ar y j ud gm ent. A l though the di str i ct c ourtpro vi ded det ai l ed i ns truct i o ns o n h o w to s ec ur e co r r o borati ng wi tne s s e s , R o man e l l is i mpl y c ho s e n o tt o do s o . More

-14 N o. 08

- 1762

o ve r, a t tr i alhe t es ti fi ed on h i s o wn be ha l fr eg ar di ng hi s uni que pe r so na lkno wl edg e o fhi s he al tha nd the tr ea tmenthe a l l eg edly was de ni ed, he cr o ss - ex ami ne d the defe nd ants and otherj ai lem plo yee s, and he pr ese nted n u me r o u s e x h ib i t s r e l e v a n tt o h i s c l a i ms . T h e j ur y, h o weve r, f ound that Rom anel l iwas n ot cr edibl e, and that h e l a c k e d s u ffi c i e ntco r r o b o r a t i n ge v i d e n c e o fh i s c l a i ms ofse ri ous m edi calco nd i ti ons. Rom anel l ifurtherar gues on a pp ealth at an a tto rney w as necess ar y in or der forhi m to se cure expertm edi cal te st i m o ny t o s uppo r t hi s cl ai m s. However, b ec au se the defe nd ants conce ded thatRom anel l ihad Crohn’ s di seas e, the on ly questi on r em ai ni ng was w hetherhe was sym ptom ati c o fthe condi ti on. Thi s w as a cr edibi l i ty que st i o n. The j ur y c ho se to b el i ev e Dr
. S ul i en e’ s an d Se rg eant K uhl’ s t est im on y that they were r esponsi ve to Rom anel l i ’ s co m pla i nts, thatRom anel l iappeare d h ea lth y a n d h ad ac tu ally ga in ed w eig h t, th at R om an elli r efus ed t o pur ch as e a bl o o d t es t o r pa i n medi ca ti o n, an d that Rom an ell i d eclined to conta ct h is h ealth ca re provi der form edi cati on. A l though i t i s co ncei vabl e that an at torney c oul d have hel ped Rom anel l ii n so m e ways, “j ust be cause counselm i ght ha ve add ed opportunit i es to i m prove the prese ntati on of [ the pla i nti ff’ s] case d oes not m ean t hat the cas e i tse l fwas so o ver l y c om ple x that c ou n se lwas re quir ed.
. . . [ S] pecula ti ng ab out how co uns el m i g ht ha ve do ne a be tt er j o b pr o se cut i ng the c a s e i s n e i the r n e c e s s a r y n o r a pp r o pr i a t e . ” Ja cks on , 54 1 F. 3d at 701 ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). Because th is w as a re lat ive l y st ra igh tfo rw ar d ca se , an d th er e is no ind i cati on o fprej ud ice , w e fi nd thatthe dist ri ct cour t’ s deci si on t o not re quest c ounselwas re aso nabl e.N o. 08

- 1762 15 Rom anel l if ai l ed to car ry h is burden to dem onst ra te on a pp ealthatthe dist ri ct c ourtm i sappli ed the correct l ega lst andard or th at i ts deci si on was unrea sonab l e. Therefor e, we fi nd thatthe dis tr i ct c ourtdi d not abuse i ts disc re ti on in denyi ng Rom anel l i ’ s m oti ons.
B. Pr i orConvi ct i ons R om an elli als o a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t co u rtsh ou ld have excl ud ed the i m peachm ent e vi dence ofhi s s exual as sa ul t an d b ai lj um pi ngc o nv i ct i o ns. R om an el l ic o ntends thathi s s exual as saul t co nvi cti on in p ar ticul arwas so hi g hl y pr ej udi ci altha t i ts admi ss i o n o ve r l y i nfl uenced the outc om e of the t ri alo n the m er i ts. A s a r esul t, R om an elli ar gu es th at h e is en tit led to a n ew tria l. W e r ev i ew e vi den ti ar y r ul i ng s f o r abu se o fdi sc r et i o n. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 45 3 F.3d 83 8, 84 5 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). In thi s co ntext, Rom anel l if aces an uphil lbat tl e be cause “the dist ri ct c ourtenj oys br oad di scr eti on. ” Kunz v. De F e li ce, 5 38 F.3d 66 7, 67 5 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Wi l s on v. Groa ni ng, 2 5 F.3d 581, 58 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( “[ T]he tr i al co ur t’ s b ala nc i ngo fpr o ba ti ve v alue a nd un f ai r pr ej udice i s hi ghl y di scr eti onar y a nd w i l lbe acco rded gr eat defer en ce . ”)
. W e wi l lr ev er se “o nl y i fa n e r r o ne o us r ul i ng has a subst anti ali nfl uence o ve r the j ury. ” U nited Sta tes v. Sm ith , 230 F.3d 300 , 307 (7th C ir. 2000). U nd erFe deralR u le o fEvi dence 609 ( a) ( 1) , ev i dence of pri orfel ony convi cti ons is adm i ssibl e in a c i vi lcas e to i m peach the cre dibi l i ty ofthe pla in ti ff, subj ect to Rule 403. U nd erRule 40 3, the dist ri ct c ourt m u st bal ance16 N o. 08

- 1762 the pr obat i ve val ue o fthe evid en c e a gainst the r i sk of unfai r prej ud i ce t o the pl ai nti ff
. Even tho ugh ev id en ce m ay be r el evant, i t m ay sti l lbe excl ud ed i fi ts proba

ti ve val ue i s s ubstanti al l y o utw ei ghed by the dange r of u n fair p rej u d ice
. Id
. He r e , a tthe t i me o fthe c o ur t ’ s r ul i ng s o n the e v i de nc e, the j ury w as al re ady aware that t h e la w sui t was a pri so ne r ’ s ci vi lr i g ht s ca se. F ur th er m o r e, Ro m an el l ic o nfi rm ed hi s cr i m i nalhi sto ryi n hi s o pening ar gum ent. W i th thi s in m i nd , the dist ri ct c ourtexerci sed i ts disc re ti o n t o a dm i t t he e vi den ce o fhi s fel o ny c o nv i ct i o ns f orse xual ass aul t a nd bai lj um ping, and hi s tw entytw o m i sdem eanorcon victi ons f ori ssui ng worthl ess c he c k s , wh i l e e xc l ud i nge v i de nc e o fh i s c o nv i c t i o ns f or re si sting/ obs tr ucti n g an o ffi cerand f ai l i ng to r epor t a s a s e x o ffe nd e r . Be f o r e the de fe nd a nt s e v e r que s t i oned R om an el l i reg ar d in g h is p rior co n vic tio n s, R om an elli ch ose to d escribe in d etail his version of the even ts un d erl yi ng ea ch co nvi cti on. A l m ostal lthe fact s r el ating to the s e xu a la s s a ul tc o nv i c t i o n tha tR om a ne l l ic o nt e nd s w er e h ighly prej ud ici al w ere brou gh t into the record by Rom anel l ihi m sel f
. Despi te h avi ng o pened the door to que st i o ns fu rthe r hi g hl i g ht i ngthe se c o nv i ct i o ns , the defen dan ts l i m i te d the i r c r o ss - ex ami na ti o n t o t wo n o nsens a t i o na l, f a c t ua lque s t i o ns tha tme r e l y c o nfi r med hi s cr i m i nalrec or d. Fi nal l y, the dist ri ct c ourtpro vi ded p ost-triall im iti ng i ns tr u ctions de tailing how the j ury shoul d consi der that e vi dence. W e c on c lu d e t h at th e d ist ric t c ou rtw as w ell w ith in i ts disc re ti on in adm i tting ev i dence ofRom anel l i ’ s pri orN o. 08

- 1762 17 convi cti ons. W e no te, h ow ev er , thatev en i fther e had been error as a resu lt ofthe ad m issi on of Rom an ell i’ s convi cti on f orse xual as saul t, such e rr orwould have been harm l ess . The o utcom e in th is case tur ned on R om an el l i ’ s ut te r l ac ko fpe r so na lc r edibi l i tya nd the p au c ity of co rro b o ra tin g e vid en c e t o s u p p or t h is c l a i ms

— not on wh at the j u ry h eard w i th r espectto his p riorc o nv ictions. W e find that the d istri ct cou rt di d no t ab us e i ts di sc r et i o n.

III. C ON CLU SI ON Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM t he di str i ct cour t’ s deni al of R om an ell i ’ s m oti ons f orco urtappoint ed counsel a n d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o all ow i m p each m en t e v iden ce in th e form of R om an ell i’ s pri orfel ony convi cti ons.

8- 11- 10