* Afterexaminingthebriefsandtherecord,w ehaveconcludedthatoralargumentisunnecessary.Thus,theappealissubmittedonthebriefsandtherecord.SeeF ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 

# United States Court of Appeals

FortheSeventhCircuitChicago,Illinois60604

SubmittedJune23,2010 *

DecidedJuly27,2010

Before

JOHNL.COFFEY,CircuitJudgeJOELM.FLAUM,CircuitJudge

DANIELA.MANION,CircuitJudge

No.091035

CEDRICDUPREE, PlaintiffAppellant ,

v.

EARLYLASTER,etal., DefendantsAppellees

. AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofIllinois.

02cv1059DRH

DavidR.Herndon,ChiefJudge

.

ORDER

CedricDupree,anIllinoisinmate,suedemployeesoftheIllinoisDepartmentofCorrectionsunder42U.S.C.§1983,claimingthattheyhadinterferedwithhisrighttopracticehisreligioninviolationoftheFirst AmendmentandtheReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsAct(“RLUIPA”),42U.S.C.§§2000cc—cc5.Thedistrictcourtinitiallydismissedthecomplaintatscreening,andweremanded,concludingthatDupree’scomplaintsufficientlystatedclaimsundertheFirstAmendmentandRLUIPA.Dupreev.NONPRECEDENTIALDISPOSITION

TobecitedonlyinaccordancewithFed.R.App.P.32.1No.091035 Page2

Laster,106F.App’x503(7thCir.2004).On remandthedistrictcourtrecruitedcounseltorepresentDupreeand,afterathreedayjury trial,enteredjudgmentinfavorofthedefendants.Dupreeappeals,butbecausehehasfailedtoprovideuswithatrialtranscript,weareunabletoconsidermanyofhisarguments.See F ED

. R. A PP

. P.10(b)(2).Ofthosethatweareabletoreview,nonehasmerit,andweaffirmthejudgmentofthedistrictcourt.

DupreetriedhisFirstAmendmentandRLUIPA claimsbeforeajuryandfocusedonthreeincidents.Heclaimedthatthedefendantsviolatedhisrighttoreligiousexercisewhentheysuspendedhimfromattendinggroupchurchserviceswhileinsegregation,andwhentheydisciplinedhimforhavingaBibleinthe “chowhall”andforgatheringinmatesforprayerinthedietaryunit.Afterthejuryreturnedaverdictforthedefendants,Dupreefiledproseamotionforanewtrialortosetasidethejuryverdictandthreesupplementalmotionsforanewtrial.Thedistrictcourttreated thefirstthreeofhisfilingsasmotionsforanewtrialunderRule59(a)andhislast filingasaRule60(b)motionforrelieffromjudgment;thecourtdeniedeach.See F ED

. R. C IV

. P.59(a);F ED

. R. C IV

. P.60(b).Dupree’sattorneymovedtowithdraw,citingDupree’sclaimthathehadreceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselduringthetrial.Thedistrictcourtgrantedcounsel’srequestandlaterdeniedDupree’smotionforreappointmentofcounsel.OnappealDupreechallengesthedistrictcourt’sdenialofhisposttrialmotions.Hismostsubstantiveargumentsforanewtrialare thatthedistrictcourterredinallowingthedefendantstointroduceevidenceofhispriorconvictionsandprisondiscipline,misinstructingthejuryastotheburdensofproofforestablishingaviolationunderRLUIPA,andnotoverturningthejury’sverdictdenyinghisclaimthatthedefendantsprohibitedhimfromattendinggroupworship.Dupree alsoassertsthatthecourtignoredhiscomplaintsthathewasnotallowedtobring hislegaldocumentstocourt,thatononeoccasionthejurysawhiminshacklesashe exitedthecourtroom,andthathewasnotallowedtopresentevidencethatduringthetrialprisonemployeesbeathiminretaliationforhislawsuit.Eachofthesepurportederrors,Dupreecontends,prejudicedhiscaseandwarrantsanewtrial.

Ordinarilyourreviewofadistrictcourt’sdenialofamotionforanewtrialisforanabuseofdiscretion.Mooreexrel.EstateofGradyv.Tuleja ,546F.3d423,427(7thCir.2008).Anewtrialmaybegrantedonlyifthejury’s verdictisagainstthemanifestweightoftheevidence,meaning“norationaljury”couldhaverenderedtheverdict.Id.(quotingKingv. Harrington ,447F.3d531,534(7thCir.2006)).Attheoutset,wenotethatDupreehasnotspecifiedwhathispriorconvictionsorprisondisciplinewerefor,andthuswecannotevaluatehisclaimthatthedistrictcourt shouldhaveexcludedthemattrial.Moreover,weareunabletodeterminewhethertheverdicti sagainstthemanifestweightoftheevidenceorwhetherthepurportederrorsprejudicedDupree becausehehasnotincludedatrialNo.091035 Page3
transcriptintherecord.Withoutthetranscript,w eareunabletoverifyhisclaimsorconductanymeaningfulappellatereviewofhisargumentsforanewtrial.SeeLearningCurveToys,Inc.v.PlayWoodToys,Inc. ,342F.3d714,731n.10(7thCir.2003) ;LaFollettev. Savage ,63F.3d540,544(7thCir.1995).FederalRuleofAppellateProcedure10(b)(2)providesthat“[i]ftheappellantintendstourgeonappealthatafindingorconclusionisunsupportedbytheevidenceoriscontrarytotheevidence,theappellantmustincludeintherecordatranscriptofallevidencerelevanttothatfindingorconclusion.”F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 10(b)(2); seeLearningCurveToys,Inc. ,342F.3dat731n.10.BecauseDupree’sargumentsrequireustoevaluatethetrialevidenceaswellasstepstakenbythedistrictcourttominimizeanyprejudice,hisfailuretoprovidethetranscriptrenderstheargumentsforfeited.SeeLearningCurveToys,Inc. ,342F.3dat731n.10.Dupree’sprosestatusdoesnotprohibitthisresult.SeeWoodsv.Thieret ,5F.3d244,245(7thCir.1993)(dismissinginparttheappealofproseplaintiffforfailuretoprovidetranscript).WecouldorderDupreetosupplementthe recordasauthorizedunderFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure10(e),see LaFollette ,63F.3dat545,butwedeclinetodosohere.Intheirresponsebrief,theappelleesgaveDupreenoticeofhisobligationtohavethetranscriptpreparedandtheconsequencesofhisfailuretodoso.Despitethisnotice,Dupreehasmadenoattempttosecureatranscript.SeeLearningCurveToys,Inc. ,342F.3dat731n.10; LaFollette ,63F.3dat54546.

Wecan,however,addressafewofDupree’sargumentsontheirface.Dupreecomplainsthathisrecruitedcounselwasineffectiveinfailingtoserveoneofthedefendantswho,Dupreecontends,couldhavetestifiedtosupport hisclaims.ButasthedistrictcourtcorrectlyexplainedwhenitdeniedhisRule 59(a)motion,thereisnoSixthAmendmentrighttoeffectiveassistanceofcounselinacivilcase,sohisdissatisfactionwithcounsel’sperformancedoesnotwarrantanewtrial.SeeStancielv.Gramley ,267F.3d575,581(7thCir.2001).Dupreealsocontendsthatafterthiscourt’sremand,thecaseshouldhavebeenreassignedtoanewdistrictjudge.Inhisthird supplementalmotionforanewtrial,herelieduponSupremeCourtRule36inarguing thathewasentitleduponremandtoachangeofvenueandhenceanewjudge.SupremeCourtRule36,however,governsthecustodyofprisonersinhabeascorpusproceedings,andthedistrictcourtcorrectlynotedthattheruledoesnotapplytoDupree’s case.ThecourtthusdeniedDupree’smotion,whichitconstruedasaRule60(b)motionforrelieffromjudgmentbecauseitwasfiledmorethantendaysaftertheentryofjudgment.SeeF ED

. R. C IV

. P. 59(b)(2008)(amendedDec.1,2009);F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 60(b); Talanov.Nw.Med.FacultyFound.,Inc. ,273F.3d757,762(7thCir.2001).PerhapsDupreeintendedtorelyonour CircuitRule36,whichprovidesthat“[w]heneveracasetriedinadistrictcourtisremanded bythiscourtforanewtrial,itshallNo.091035 Page4
bereassignedbythedistrictcourtfortrialbefore ajudgeotherthanthejudgewhoheardthepriortrial....”ButDupree’scasehadbeendismisseduponscreening,see 28U.S.C.§1915A(b)(1),andremandedforfurtherproceedings.“Ordersdirectingthedistrictcourttoundertakefurtherproceedingsareroutinelyheardb ythedistrictjudgewhoenteredtheorderthatwasthesubjectoftheappeal,”andCircuitRule36doesnotrequirereassignment.InreUnitedStates ,572F.3d301,305n.3(7thCir.2009).Dupreefurtherassertsthatreassignmentwasnecessarybecausethejudge’spriordismissalofthecomplaintdemonstratedhisprejudiceagainstthecase. Judicialrulings,however,rarelypresentavalidbasistoquestionajudge’simpartiality, Litekyv.UnitedStates ,510U.S.540,555(1994),andDupreehaspresentednoreasonwhythejudgecouldnotfairlyruleinhiscasefollowingremand,seeCollinsv.Illinois ,554F.3d693,697(7thCir.2009);seealsoLiteky ,510U.S.at551(“Ithaslongbeenregardedasnormal andproperforajudgetositinthesamecaseuponitsremand,andtositinsuccessivetrialsinvolvingthesamedefendant.”).

Finally,thedistrictcourtdidnotabuse itsdiscretionindenyingDupree’sposttrialrequestforreappointmentofcounsel.Thecourt appliedthecorrectlegalstandardandbaseditsdecisiononfactssupportedbytherecord.SeeSantiagov.Walls ,599F.3d749,76061(7thCir.2010); Pruittv.Mote ,503F.3d647,658(7thCir.2007)(enbanc).ThecourtconsideredDupree’sargumentsregardingthecomplexityofhisclaimsandhisexperiencewithmentalillness,butnotedthatDupreehadbeenabletoadequatelyfiletwoproseposttrialmotions.ThecourtaddedthatDupreehadfoundfaultwitheachofthefourlawyersrecruitedtoassisthimandhadsimplybeenunabletomaintainanattorneyclientrelationship.Underthesecircumstances,weconcludethatthecourt’sdecisiontodenythereappointmentofcounselwasreasonable.SeePruitt ,503F.3dat65859.Accordingly,weAFFIRMthejudgmentofthedistrictcourt.