### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 10-3979

D E VARI S P E R

R Y , Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

C I T Y OF C H I C A G O

AND B AR

T E L L K E I T H L E Y

, Defen dants-Appellees.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Eastern Di v i sio n. No. 1: 08 -cv-47 30 — Sid ney I. Sch enk ie r , Magistrate J udg e.

A RG U E D S E P T E MB E R 16, 2013

— D E C I D E D O C T OB E R 23, 2013

Before K AN N E, R OV N E R , and W I L L I AM S

, Circ uit Judges.

K AN N E, Cir cui t Judge. Barte ll Keithley, a Chi cago poli ce offi cer , shot Dev aris Per r y t wi ce duri ng an encounter that ended i n Perr y’s arr est. Perr y w as acqui tte d of the relat ed cri minal charges and fi led sui t again st Offi cer Keithley and the Ci ty of Chi cago, allegin g violati ons of both federal and Illi noi s ci vil rig ht s laws, and seeki ng i ndemni fi cati on from the Ci ty

.2 No. 10-3979
The jury rej ected Perr y’s c lai ms. Perr y now appeals, asserting that the di stric t court ma d e sev eral evidenti ary err or s that i nfected the jury ’s delibera t io ns. For the reasons detailed below , w e affi rm the deci si on of the dis tr i ct court.

I. B A C K G R O U N D Thi s case aris es from appellant Devar is Perr y’s arr est and shooting on Sept ember 14, 20 0 7. On that mornin g, Chi cago poli ce offi cers Barte ll Keithle y and St ephen W atts responded to repo rt s of gunfi re at 527 East Browning, a hi gh ris e i n the Ida B. W ells housing c omplex on the s outh s i de of Chi cago. Upon

arr iv ing at the scen e, tw o people told the offi cers that “gangbanger s” w ere running gun s a n d d ru gs in to the b ui lding. They also poi nted the offi cers t o apartment 501. Keithley and W atts enter ed the bui ldi ng a nd knocked on the door of uni t 501. No o ne answ ered, so Keithley and W atts enter ed the apartment wi th their guns drawn. They found Perr y i nsi de the apartment and or dered hi m to get down again st the w all. Perr y compli ed after a bri ef pr o t est. W atts then searched the apartment, finding chu nks of crack cocaine, clear Zip loc bags, and razor blades in a bedroom. When W atts ret ur ne d from the search, Perr y ran for the door , knocking Keithley ov er i n hi s haste to esca p e

. P e rr y maintai ned t hat he fled because the offi cers star ted punchi ng hi m after he asked what w as going on. The offi cers bot h testifi ed that the y d id no t punch Perr y , but di d acknowledge that when Perr y r us he d i nto Keithley , W atts struck hi m wi th hi s gun and punched hi m. Perr y suc cess fully escaped and ran down to the thi rd floor

. Keithley follow e d him, gun drawn, whi le W atts stay ed behind to secure apart ment 501.No. 10-3979 3 Keithley testifi ed that Perr y popped out from be hin d a
corner , rushed tow ard hi m, gr abbed hi s shoulders, and tr i ed to gr ab hi s gun. Keithley sai d he tr i ed to punch Perr y inthe face but instead hi t hi m in the s houlder; at thi s point hi s gun went off, striki ng Keithley in the arm. Perr y then atte mpted to escape behind Keithley , k no cki ng Keithley off-bal ance i n the process. Keithley shot at Perr y whi le falling to the fl o o r
. One bullet struck Perr y i n the thi gh, an d another struck h i m i n the back.
Perr y deni ed reachi ng for Keithley’s gu n, instead contendi ng that Keithley y elled, “Fr eeze, mother fuc ker , or I’m going to shoot.” Perr y sai d he kept running and felt a bullet rip thro ugh hi s thi gh shortly t he r e a ft er

. He w as sti ll able to run, and kept doin g so unt il a se co nd bullet hi t hi s back and brought hi m to the g r o un d. Perr y sai d he di d not know how Keithley w as shot, but suggested in a wri tte n statement that Keithley had ei ther shot hi mself or had W

atts shoothi m. W atts called an ambu lance, whic h too k Perr y to Coo k County Hospi tal. A few days lat e r , P e r ry w as tr ansferr ed to Cermak Health Ser v ice s i n the Coo k County Jai l. When he

a r r ived at Cermak, he w as admi tte d under the name “Ri cky Jo hnson”; prev i ously

, when in Illi noi s Department of Cor rections custody

, Perr y had pro vided thi s ali as. Perr y w as charge d with atte mpted murder , aggr av ated batter y wi th a fi rear m, and di sarmi ng a p e ace offi cer

. A jury found hi m not guilty of these charges on July 24, 2009. Whi le the charges again st hi m w ere pending, Perr y fil e d sui t again st Offi cers K e it hl e y and W atts, and ag ai nst t he Ci ty of Chi cago, clai ming violati ons of both federal and Illi noi s ci vil4 No. 10-3979 rights laws

. Speci fi cally , Perr y’s second amended compla int asserted clai ms under 42 U

. S

. C. § 1983 again st both offi cers (allegi ng excessi v e fo r ce, fai lure to intervene to prev ent excessi v e force, false arr est, and mali ci ous prosecuti on) and an I l li noi s mali cio us p r o se cu t io n cl a im. I t a l so so ug ht i ndemni fi cati on of the offi cers by the Ci ty

. The clai ms agains t W atts w ere dis mi ssed p rior to tr i al. Before Perr y’s ci vil tr i al, he fi led motions in li mine seeking t o b a r r e f e r e n c e t o h i s c r imi n a l b a c k g r o u n d , h i s contemp or a n e ou s in c a rcerat i on on unrelated cri minal charges, and hi s gang membershi p. The magi strat e gr anted the motions concerni ng Perr y’s present incarceration a nd hi s gang membershi p wi thout objection. The court gr anted i n part and deni ed in part the motion concerning Perr y’s cri minal backgro und, allowi ng evidenc e only that Perr y w as convic ted of a cri me i n 2004 for whi ch he w a s o n p a ro le at the tim e he

w as sh ot. When tr i al began on the afterno on of Nov ember 8, 2010, Perr y assert s that uni formed guards from the Coo k County Department of Cor re ct io ns atte nded the tr i al to keep w atch

o ver Perr y

. At the end of that fi rst day , the magi strat e remark ed, “ci vili an clothi ng tomo rr ow .” Perr y d id not object to the guards’ p r esence, nor to the comment about ci vili an clothi ng. Duri ng a sidebar before Perr y too k the stand, he sought clari fi cati on reg ardin g testim ony about the name Ri cky Johnson. Perr y e x p r e ssed concern that bri ngi ng up Ri cky Johnson w ould open the door to other , p r io r arr ests duri ng which he had also used the name. The magi strat e ruled tha tNo. 10-3979 5 questi oni ng co nc e r ning the use of the ali as i n other arr ests

w ould violate hi s ruli ng on the mot io n in li mine to bar evidence of Perr y’s cri minal backgro und. But, he further explain ed that questi oni ng about the use of an ali as duri ng the 2 0 04 arr est w as “fai r game.” Perr y then testifi ed on di rect exami nati on that he gav e the name Ri cky Johnson duri ng the 2004 arr est. Duri ng cross-examinat ion, couns el for Keithley and the ci ty asked Perr y a few addi tional questi o ns , p ro bing whether Perr y g a v e a fake name duri ng hi s 2007 arr est followi ng the shooting and how the name Ri cky Johnson appeared on P err y’s medi cal records.
Later , W atts testifi ed on di rect exami nati on that the people who poin ted hi m to apartment 501 also menti on e d t hat “gangbanger s” w ere running drugs and guns int o 5 27 East Browni ng. Perr y objecte d, ci tin g the court’s ruli ng o n hi s motion i n li mine to bar refer ence to Perr y’s gang membershi p. The magi strat e permi tte d the testim ony but w arned couns el that she w as “tr ai psing into areas of gang acti vity” and that she

w as “really oper atin g v ery close to the edg e.” The mornin g of t he final day of tr i al, one of the juro rs (“ M rs. A”), saw the marshals lead Perr y from the freight elev ator a nd i nto the courtr oom. At the tim e, Perr y w as
w earing a sui t and tie but w as handc uffed i n front. He held hi s hands i n such a w ay that i t w as no t o bv i ous he w as handc uffed. The magi strat e di scu ssed th e ma t ter wi th both parties, and all agr eed t ha t t he magi strat e should di scu ss the encounter wi th Mr s. A. The magi strat e asked Mr s. A about the

e ncounter outsi de the presence of the other juro rs, and sh e acknowledged that she had seen Perr y that mornin g. When the magi strat e asked i f she had notic ed anythin g i n particu lar6 No. 10-3979
about Perr y

, Mr s. A responded that sh e look ed down, di d not pay att ention to Perr y or make ey e contact, and di d not r ecall anythin g in particu lar

. She di d menti on that there w ere sev eral oth e r p e o p l e i n the hallw ay wi th Perr y , but also sai d she di d not think anythin g of i t. She had not di scu ssed the i nci dent wi th the o ther j uror s. After speaki ng wit h M rs. A, the magi strat e di scu ssed the i nci dent wi th the atto rneys. All agr eed that nothin g further needed to be do ne, except that t he magi strat e should instruct Mr s. A not to di scu ss the i nci dent wi th the other juro rs. The magi strat e did so , and closing arg uments proceeded as sch eduled. The jury found i n fav or of d e fe ndants Keithley and the Ci ty , rej ecti ng Perr y ’s clai ms. Perr y now appeals that v erdic t.

II. A N A L

Y S I S Perr y clai ms that the di stric t court err ed i n three w ays: (1) permi tting questi oning as t o whether he used anali as during t he a r rest that gav e ris e to hi s ci vil sui t, (2) permi tt ing testim ony that “gangbanger s” w ere present i n t he apartment where Pe r r y w as found, and (3) allowi ng Perr y to appear surrounded by uni formed guards on the fi rst day of tr i al, and permi tting a juro r to see Perr y in handcuffs on hi s w ay to court. A. Questionin g abo ut Perry’s Alias and T estimony about “Gangba ngers”
Perr y fi rst arg ues the court err ed by permi tting questi oni ng
a bo ut Perr y’s ali as and testim ony about the presence of “gangbanger s” in a p a rt ment 501, giv en i ts prior in li mineNo. 10-3979 7
ruli ngs. Pe r r y d oes not challen ge the motions i n li mine themselv es, but rat her asserts that the court violated i t s o wn ruli ngs by admi tting the ali as and gangbangers testim ony

. T rial courts i ssu e ruli ngs on motions in li mine to gui de the parties on what evidenc e i t wi ll admi t later i n tr i a l

. As a tr i al prog resses, the p r esi di ng judge remain s free to alter earlier ruli ngs. Luc e v
. United States , 469 U.S. 38, 41–42 (1984); Farfaras

v
. Citizens Bank & T

rust of Chi. , 433 F .3d 558, 565 (7th Ci r
. 2006). Thi s court rev i ews a di stric t court’s evidenti ary ru l ing s for abus e of di screti on. Common v
. City of Chicago , 661 F .3d 940, 946 (7th Ci r
. 2011). W

e wil l rev erse only i f no reasonable person
w ould agr ee wi th the tr i al court’s ruli ng and the err or li kely affec ted the outcome of the tr i al. Farfaras , 433 F .3d at 564 (ci tations o mi tte d). Thus, a cour t ’ s d eter minati on that a pi ece of evidenc e falls wi thi n (or outsi de) a motion i n li mine wi ll be

rev ersed only i f that deter minati on consti tuted such an abus e. If evidenc e di d not violat e t he ruli ng i n li mine, the court’s deci si on to admi t i t cannot be an abus e of di scretio n. W illis v
. Lepin e, 687 F .3d 826, 839 (7th Ci r . 2012). 1. The Alias Before t rial, the magi strat e i ssu ed a motion in li mine ruli ng wi th reg ard to Perr y’s crim inal bac kgr ound that permi tte d “only ev i dence that plai nti ff w as convi cted of a cri me in 2004, serv ed a sentence of 17 months incarceration, and w as on parole for that o ffens e at t he tim e of the inc i dent at is sue in thi s trial.” It w as di rected o nly to Perr y’s “cri minal bac kgr ound” and thus di d not bar ev i dence of the

arr est that g av e ris e to Perr y’s clai m. At t rial du ring a si debar di scu ssing this ruli ng, the court addi tionally barred8 No. 10-3979

testim ony concernin g the use of an ali as in any prior arr ests, whi le noting that counsel c ould sti ll eli ci t te sti mony about Perr y’s use of the Ri cky Johnson ali as in connec tion w i th the 2004 convic tion. Later

, the magis tr ate o v err uled Perr y’s objection to questioning about whether he used the ali as. Perr y ar gues that the dis cus si on durin g the sid ebar barred any testim ony concernin g the use of Ric ky Jo hnson duri ng the 2007 encounter wi th Keithley and W atts becaus e the magis tr ate pr ohibi ted te sti mony about t he use of the ali as “in other arr ests.” (Appellan t’s Br . at 9–10.) Thi s arg ument, how ev er

, i gnor es the context of the si debar di scu ssi on. The magi strat e w as cons i dering hi s ruling on Perr y’s crim i nal backgr

ound, not t he use of an al i as during the

ev ents that led to Perr y’s ci vil s ui t. P err y’s counsel h i mself phrased hi s conc erns i n terms of P err y’s past arr ests. Gi v en thi s context, w e cannot say that t he magi strat e abus ed hi s di screti on by later permi tting questi oni ng as to whether Perr y used an ali as during hi s 2007 arrest. 2. “Gangba ngers”
In the same pre-tr i al ruli ng, the magi strat e gr anted Perr y’s motion to bar refer ence to Pe r r y’s gang membershi p wi thout objection. Perr y arg ues that W atts’s testim ony that a bystander told hi m “g angbangers w ere running the g uns and t he drugs up i nto 527 East Browni ng” violated thi s motion i n li mine and thus the f ai lure to corr ect i t consti tuted an abus e of di screti on by the tr i al court. The motion i n li mine, how ev er , specific ally barred refer ence to Perr y’s gang memb e rshi p. It di d not address evidenc e of gang acti vity i n 527 East Browni ng or apar t mentNo. 10-3979 9
501. W atts’s gangbanger s stat ement di d not ex pli ci tly r efer to Perr y’s own gang membershi p, and thus di d not fall wi thi n the prior motion i n li mine ruli ng. Although i t could be arg ued that the testi mony w ould hav e allow ed the jury to infer that Perr y
w as also a gangbanger

, w e rev erse for abus e of di screti on only where “no reasonable person w ould a gr e e wi th the tr i al court’s ruli ng.” Aldridge v

. Forest River , Inc. , 635 F .3d 870, 875 (7th Ci r
. 2011). B. The Unif

ormed Guards and Handcu ffs
Perr y also arg ues that the co urt fai led to shi eld hi s i ncarceration from t he j ur y , as the magi strat e indi cated he

w ould do in a pret rial ruli ng. Perr y asserts that the uni formed guards i n t he court r oom on the fi rst day of tr i al and M rs. A’s glim pse of hi m surrounded by marshals prej udi ced hi m before the j ury
. Perr y di d not object to ei ther ev ent at tr i al. Thus, at most,

w e can rev i ew hi s clai m for plai n err or

. String e l v
. Metho dist Hosp. of In d i an a, Inc. , 89 F .3d 415, 421 (7th Ci r
. 1996). In most ci vil cases, plai n e rr or rev i ew is unav ai lable; if a part y fai ls t o object a t t r ia l, the i ssu e cannot be rais ed on appeal. Id. A

narro w exception to this gener al rule permits reviewwhere a party can demonstrate that (1) exceptional ci rcums tances exis t, (2) sub stanti al rights are affec ted, and (3) a mi scarri age of justic e wi ll result i f the d o ct rine i s not appli ed. Estat e of Mor eland v . Dieter, 395 F .3d 747, 756 (7th Ci r . 2005).
Perr y atte mpts t o make thi s showi ng, bu t fa ils on the fi rst and thi rd e l e m e n ts

. H e s u gg e s ts th a t exceptional ci rcums tances exis ted becau se he w as i ncarcerated at the tim e of the hearin g, but the magi strat e barred all refer ence to the fact that he w as10 No. 10-3979

i ncarcerate d

. (Appellant’s Br

. at 16.) But thi s “exceptional ci rcums tance” does not provid e any explanation for why Perr y fai led to o bject at tr i al. See Kafka v. T ruck Ins. Exchange , 19 F .3d 383, 386 (7th Ci r
. 1994) (“[The plai nti ff ] does not di rect us to any exceptional ci rcums tances whi ch caus ed hi s fai lur e to object to the questi o ns p ro pounded to hi m duri ng crossexami nati on.”). Perr y does poin t to a sub stanti al right that may hav e been affec ted by the tr i al court’s ruli ng—hi s right to a fai r tr i al—but that alon e d oe s not necess i tate plai n err or rev i ew

. See Stringe l , 89 F .3d at 421–22. As for the thi rd element, Perr y does not demonstrate that a mi scarri age of justic e wi ll occur i f the di stric t court’s acti ons ar e not deemed clearly err oneous. The only evidenc e that uni formed guards w ere present on the fi rst day i s the magi strat e’s statement, “ci vili an clothes tomo rr ow .” Addi tionally

, the magi strat e too k sev eral steps to guarante e that Mr s. A’s si ghting of Perr y di d not i nf e ct t he jury deliberations. Ev en though Mr s. A apparently di d not notic e Perr y’s handc uff s or the marshals a cc ompanyi ng hi m, the

ma g ist rat e clearly i nstructed her not to di scu ss the i nci dent wi th a ny of the other juro rs. Becaus e Perr y cannot make the

necess ary showing, w e wi ll not excuse hi s fai lure to tim ely object and wi ll not per form plai n err or rev i ew

. III. C O N C L U S I O N For the abov e reasons, w e AF F I R M the deci si on of the di stric t court.