United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 18, 2021*

Decided November 19, 2021 

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 20-3453 

ERIC BERNARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ROGER SCOTT, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of 

Illinois, Western Division. 

No. 3:15-cv-50277 

Iain D. Johnston, 

Judge. 

O R D E R

Eric Bernard sued officials of DeKalb County, Illinois, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for 

violating his rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments during 

multiple detentions at the county jail since 2009. He alleged that jail staff failed to 

provide medical and mental-health services, improperly kept him in administrative 

*

 After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that the case is 

appropriate for disposition without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 20-3453 Page 2 

segregation, discriminated against him because of his race, retaliated against him for 

filing lawsuits, and restricted his access to religious services. 

Both Bernard, who had the services of recruited counsel, and the defendants 

ultimately moved for summary judgment. The district court concluded that some of 

Bernard’s claims were untimely, others were barred by a failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies, and his claims for injunctive relief were moot because Bernard 

was no longer in the DeKalb County Jail. (He is now in a state prison.) As to the rest, the 

court determined that Bernard failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact about any 

violation of his constitutional rights and therefore entered judgment for the defendants. 

Bernard appealed and asked this court to recruit counsel for him. The motions 

judge denied the request while explaining that “the panel assigned to decide this case 

may recruit counsel if it finds that step appropriate after reviewing the briefs.” The 

appeal proceeded to briefing, and after reviewing the parties’ submissions, we conclude 

that the case must be dismissed. 

In his appellate briefs, Bernard raises no arguments about his substantive claims 

and cites no authority. Instead, in both his opening and reply briefs, he asks for an 

attorney, asserting that he is incapacitated from a stroke and afflicted with mental 

illness, and that his jailhouse lawyer is being harassed. But without even a preview of 

the potential issues on appeal, we will not reconsider the denial of Bernard’s motions 

for recruited counsel. Because Bernard does not engage with the issues on appeal, the 

defendants ask us to dismiss the appeal under Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate 

Procedure.

We liberally construe pro se filings, but we still must be able to discern a party’s 

argument and the basis for it. FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 

544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). We will not consider undeveloped arguments for remand or 

reversal; the appellant’s brief must engage with the reasons that he lost. See Shipley v. 

Chicago Bd. of Election Comm’rs, 947 F.3d 1056, 1062–63 (7th Cir. 2020); Klein v. O’Brien, 

884 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2018). From Bernard’s briefs, we discern no basis to disturb

the district court’s judgment, and we “cannot fill the void by crafting arguments and 

performing the necessary legal research.” Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545; see also Jeffers v. 

Comm'r, 992 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2021). 

DISMISSED