Cedric Dupree v. Early Laster, et al, No. 09-1035 (7th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwithȱ Fed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1 United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604 SubmittedȱJuneȱ23,ȱ2010* DecidedȱJulyȱ27,ȱ2010 Before JOHNȱL.ȱCOFFEY,ȱCircuitȱJudgeȱ JOELȱM.ȱFLAUM,ȱCircuitȱJudge DANIELȱA.ȱMANION,ȱCircuitȱJudge No.ȱ09Ȭ1035 CEDRICȱDUPREE, PlaintiffȬAppellant, v. EARLYȱLASTER,ȱetȱal., DefendantsȬAppellees. AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrict CourtȱforȱtheȱSouthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois. 02ȬcvȬ1059ȬDRH DavidȱR.ȱHerndon, ChiefȱJudge. OȱRȱDȱEȱR CedricȱDupree,ȱanȱIllinoisȱinmate,ȱsuedȱemployeesȱofȱtheȱIllinoisȱDepartmentȱof Correctionsȱunderȱ42ȱU.S.C.ȱ§È±1983,ȱclaimingȱthatȱtheyȱhadȱinterferedȱwithȱhisȱrightȱto practiceȱhisȱreligionȱinȱviolationȱofȱtheȱFirstȱAmendmentȱandȱtheȱReligiousȱLandȱUseȱand InstitutionalizedȱPersonsȱActȱ( RLUIPA ),ȱ42ȱU.S.C.ȱ§§È±2000cc ccȬ5.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourt initiallyȱdismissedȱtheȱcomplaintȱatȱscreening,ȱandȱweȱremanded,ȱconcludingȱthatȱDupree s complaintȱsufficientlyȱstatedȱclaimsȱunderȱtheȱFirstȱAmendmentȱandȱRLUIPA.ȱȱDupreeȱv. * Afterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱis unnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP. 34(a)(2)(C). No.ȱ09Ȭ1035 Pageȱ2 Laster,ȱ106ȱF.ȱApp xȱ503ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2004).ȱȱOnȱremandȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱrecruitedȱcounselȱto representȱDupreeȱand,ȱafterȱaȱthreeȬdayȱjuryȱtrial,ȱenteredȱjudgmentȱinȱfavorȱofȱthe defendants.ȱȱDupreeȱappeals,ȱbutȱbecauseȱheȱhasȱfailedȱtoȱprovideȱusȱwithȱaȱtrialȱtranscript, weȱareȱunableȱtoȱconsiderȱmanyȱofȱhisȱarguments.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP.ȱ10(b)(2).ȱȱOfȱthoseȱthat weȱareȱableȱtoȱreview,ȱnoneȱhasȱmerit,ȱandȱweȱaffirmȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt. DupreeȱtriedȱhisȱFirstȱAmendmentȱandȱRLUIPAȱclaimsȱbeforeȱaȱjuryȱandȱfocusedȱon threeȱincidents.ȱȱHeȱclaimedȱthatȱtheȱdefendantsȱviolatedȱhisȱrightȱtoȱreligiousȱexerciseȱwhen theyȱsuspendedȱhimȱfromȱattendingȱgroupȱchurchȱservicesȱwhileȱinȱsegregation,ȱandȱwhen theyȱdisciplinedȱhimȱforȱhavingȱaȱBibleȱinȱtheȱ chowȱhall ȱandȱforȱgatheringȱinmatesȱfor prayerȱinȱtheȱdietaryȱunit.ȱȱAfterȱtheȱjuryȱreturnedȱaȱverdictȱforȱtheȱdefendants,ȱDupreeȱfiled proȱseȱaȱmotionȱforȱaȱnewȱtrialȱorȱtoȱsetȱasideȱtheȱjuryȱverdictȱandȱthreeȱsupplemental motionsȱforȱaȱnewȱtrial.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱtreatedȱtheȱfirstȱthreeȱofȱhisȱfilingsȱasȱmotionsȱfor aȱnewȱtrialȱunderȱRuleȱ59(a)ȱandȱhisȱlastȱfilingȱasȱaȱRuleȱ60(b)ȱmotionȱforȱreliefȱfrom judgment;ȱtheȱcourtȱdeniedȱeach.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱCIV.ȱP.ȱ59(a);ȱFED.ȱR.ȱCIV.ȱP.ȱ60(b).ȱȱDupree s attorneyȱmovedȱtoȱwithdraw,ȱcitingȱDupree sȱclaimȱthatȱheȱhadȱreceivedȱineffective assistanceȱofȱcounselȱduringȱtheȱtrial.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱgrantedȱcounsel sȱrequestȱandȱlater deniedȱDupree sȱmotionȱforȱreappointmentȱofȱcounsel.ȱȱ OnȱappealȱDupreeȱchallengesȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt sȱdenialȱofȱhisȱpostȬtrialȱmotions.ȱȱHis mostȱsubstantiveȱargumentsȱforȱaȱnewȱtrialȱareȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱerredȱinȱallowingȱthe defendantsȱtoȱintroduceȱevidenceȱofȱhisȱpriorȱconvictionsȱandȱprisonȱdiscipline, misinstructingȱtheȱjuryȱasȱtoȱtheȱburdensȱofȱproofȱforȱestablishingȱaȱviolationȱunder RLUIPA,ȱandȱnotȱoverturningȱtheȱjury sȱverdictȱdenyingȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱdefendants prohibitedȱhimȱfromȱattendingȱgroupȱworship.ȱȱDupreeȱalsoȱassertsȱthatȱtheȱcourtȱignored hisȱcomplaintsȱthatȱheȱwasȱnotȱallowedȱtoȱbringȱhisȱlegalȱdocumentsȱtoȱcourt,ȱthatȱonȱone occasionȱtheȱjuryȱsawȱhimȱinȱshacklesȱasȱheȱexitedȱtheȱcourtroom,ȱandȱthatȱheȱwasȱnot allowedȱtoȱpresentȱevidenceȱthatȱduringȱtheȱtrialȱprisonȱemployeesȱbeatȱhimȱinȱretaliation forȱhisȱlawsuit.ȱȱEachȱofȱtheseȱpurportedȱerrors,ȱDupreeȱcontends,ȱprejudicedȱhisȱcaseȱand warrantsȱaȱnewȱtrial. Ordinarilyȱourȱreviewȱofȱaȱdistrictȱcourt sȱdenialȱofȱaȱmotionȱforȱaȱnewȱtrialȱisȱforȱan abuseȱofȱdiscretion.ȱȱMooreȱexȱrel.ȱEstateȱofȱGradyȱv.ȱTuleja,ȱ546ȱF.3dȱ423,ȱ427ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008).ȱȱA newȱtrialȱmayȱbeȱgrantedȱonlyȱifȱtheȱjury sȱverdictȱisȱagainstȱtheȱmanifestȱweightȱofȱthe evidence,ȱmeaningȱ noȱrationalȱjury ȱcouldȱhaveȱrenderedȱtheȱverdict.ȱȱId.ȱ(quotingȱKingȱv. Harrington,ȱ447ȱF.3dȱ531,ȱ534ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2006)).ȱȱAtȱtheȱoutset,ȱweȱnoteȱthatȱDupreeȱhasȱnot specifiedȱwhatȱhisȱpriorȱconvictionsȱorȱprisonȱdisciplineȱwereȱfor,ȱandȱthusȱweȱcannot evaluateȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱshouldȱhaveȱexcludedȱthemȱatȱtrial.ȱȱMoreover,ȱwe areȱunableȱtoȱdetermineȱwhetherȱtheȱverdictȱisȱagainstȱtheȱmanifestȱweightȱofȱtheȱevidence orȱwhetherȱtheȱpurportedȱerrorsȱprejudicedȱDupreeȱbecauseȱheȱhasȱnotȱincludedȱaȱtrial No.ȱ09Ȭ1035 Pageȱ3 transcriptȱinȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱWithoutȱtheȱtranscript,ȱweȱareȱunableȱtoȱverifyȱhisȱclaimsȱor conductȱanyȱmeaningfulȱappellateȱreviewȱofȱhisȱargumentsȱforȱaȱnewȱtrial.ȱȱSeeȱLearning CurveȱToys,ȱInc.ȱv.ȱPlayWoodȱToys,ȱInc.,ȱ342ȱF.3dȱ714,ȱ731ȱn.10ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2003);ȱLaFolletteȱv. Savage,ȱ63ȱF.3dȱ540,ȱ544ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1995).ȱȱFederalȱRuleȱofȱAppellateȱProcedureȱ10(b)(2) providesȱthatȱ [i]fȱtheȱappellantȱintendsȱtoȱurgeȱonȱappealȱthatȱaȱfindingȱorȱconclusionȱis unsupportedȱbyȱtheȱevidenceȱorȱisȱcontraryȱtoȱtheȱevidence,ȱtheȱappellantȱmustȱincludeȱin theȱrecordȱaȱtranscriptȱofȱallȱevidenceȱrelevantȱtoȱthatȱfindingȱorȱconclusion. ȱȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP. 10(b)(2);ȱseeȱLearningȱCurveȱToys,ȱInc.,ȱ342ȱF.3dȱatȱ731ȱn.10.ȱȱBecauseȱDupree sȱarguments requireȱusȱtoȱevaluateȱtheȱtrialȱevidenceȱasȱwellȱasȱstepsȱtakenȱbyȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱto minimizeȱanyȱprejudice,ȱhisȱfailureȱtoȱprovideȱtheȱtranscriptȱrendersȱtheȱarguments forfeited.ȱȱSeeȱLearningȱCurveȱToys,ȱInc.,ȱ342ȱF.3dȱatȱ731ȱn.10.ȱȱDupree sȱproȱseȱstatusȱdoesȱnot prohibitȱthisȱresult.ȱȱSeeȱWoodsȱv.ȱThieret,ȱ5ȱF.3dȱ244,ȱ245ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ1993)ȱ(dismissingȱinȱpart theȱappealȱofȱproȱseȱplaintiffȱforȱfailureȱtoȱprovideȱtranscript).ȱȱ WeȱcouldȱorderȱDupreeȱtoȱsupplementȱtheȱrecordȱasȱauthorizedȱunderȱFederalȱRule ofȱAppellateȱProcedureȱ10(e),ȱseeȱLaFollette,ȱ63ȱF.3dȱatȱ545,ȱbutȱweȱdeclineȱtoȱdoȱsoȱhere.ȱȱIn theirȱresponseȱbrief,ȱtheȱappelleesȱgaveȱDupreeȱnoticeȱofȱhisȱobligationȱtoȱhaveȱtheȱtranscript preparedȱandȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱhisȱfailureȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱȱDespiteȱthisȱnotice,ȱDupreeȱhasȱmade noȱattemptȱtoȱsecureȱaȱtranscript.ȱȱSeeȱLearningȱCurveȱToys,ȱInc.,ȱ342ȱF.3dȱatȱ731ȱn.10; LaFollette,ȱ63ȱF.3dȱatȱ545Ȭ46. Weȱcan,ȱhowever,ȱaddressȱaȱfewȱofȱDupree sȱargumentsȱonȱtheirȱface.ȱȱDupreeȱ complainsȱthatȱhisȱrecruitedȱcounselȱwasȱineffectiveȱinȱfailingȱtoȱserveȱoneȱofȱtheȱdefendants who,ȱDupreeȱcontends,ȱcouldȱhaveȱtestifiedȱtoȱsupportȱhisȱclaims.ȱȱButȱasȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt correctlyȱexplainedȱwhenȱitȱdeniedȱhisȱRuleȱ59(a)ȱmotion,ȱthereȱisȱnoȱSixthȬAmendment rightȱtoȱeffectiveȱassistanceȱofȱcounselȱinȱaȱcivilȱcase,ȱsoȱhisȱdissatisfactionȱwithȱcounsel s performanceȱdoesȱnotȱwarrantȱaȱnewȱtrial.ȱȱSeeȱStancielȱv.ȱGramley,ȱ267ȱF.3dȱ575,ȱ581ȱ(7thȱCir. 2001).ȱ Dupreeȱalsoȱcontendsȱthatȱafterȱthisȱcourt sȱremand,ȱtheȱcaseȱshouldȱhaveȱbeen reassignedȱtoȱaȱnewȱdistrictȱjudge.ȱȱInȱhisȱthirdȱsupplementalȱmotionȱforȱaȱnewȱtrial,ȱhe reliedȱuponȱSupremeȱCourtȱRuleȱ36ȱinȱarguingȱthatȱheȱwasȱentitledȱuponȱremandȱtoȱa changeȱofȱvenueȱandȱhenceȱaȱnewȱjudge.ȱȱSupremeȱCourtȱRuleȱ36,ȱhowever,ȱgovernsȱthe custodyȱofȱprisonersȱinȱhabeasȱcorpusȱproceedings,ȱandȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱcorrectlyȱnoted thatȱtheȱruleȱdoesȱnotȱapplyȱtoȱDupree sȱcase.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱthusȱdeniedȱDupree sȱmotion, whichȱitȱconstruedȱasȱaȱRuleȱ60(b)ȱmotionȱforȱreliefȱfromȱjudgmentȱbecauseȱitȱwasȱfiledȱmore thanȱtenȱdaysȱafterȱtheȱentryȱofȱjudgment.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱCIV.ȱP.ȱ59(b)ȱ(2008)ȱ(amendedȱDec.ȱ1, 2009);ȱFED.ȱR.ȱCIV.ȱP.ȱ60(b);ȱTalanoȱv.ȱNw.ȱMed.ȱFacultyȱFound.,ȱInc.,ȱ273ȱF.3dȱ757,ȱ762ȱ(7thȱCir. 2001).ȱȱPerhapsȱDupreeȱintendedȱtoȱrelyȱonȱourȱCircuitȱRuleȱ36,ȱwhichȱprovidesȱthat [w]heneverȱaȱcaseȱtriedȱinȱaȱdistrictȱcourtȱisȱremandedȱbyȱthisȱcourtȱforȱaȱnewȱtrial,ȱitȱshall No.ȱ09Ȭ1035 Pageȱ4 beȱreassignedȱbyȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱforȱtrialȱbeforeȱaȱjudgeȱotherȱthanȱtheȱjudgeȱwhoȱheard theȱpriorȱtrialȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱ. ȱȱButȱDupree sȱcaseȱhadȱbeenȱdismissedȱuponȱscreening,ȱseeȱ28ȱU.S.C. §È±1915A(b)(1),ȱandȱremandedȱforȱfurtherȱproceedings.ȱȱ Ordersȱdirectingȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱto undertakeȱfurtherȱproceedingsȱareȱroutinelyȱheardȱbyȱtheȱdistrictȱjudgeȱwhoȱenteredȱthe orderȱthatȱwasȱtheȱsubjectȱofȱtheȱappeal, ȱandȱCircuitȱRuleȱ36ȱdoesȱnotȱrequireȱreassignment.ȱ InȱreȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ572ȱF.3dȱ301,ȱ305ȱn.3ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱDupreeȱfurtherȱassertsȱthat reassignmentȱwasȱnecessaryȱbecauseȱtheȱjudge sȱpriorȱdismissalȱofȱtheȱcomplaint demonstratedȱhisȱprejudiceȱagainstȱtheȱcase.ȱȱJudicialȱrulings,ȱhowever,ȱrarelyȱpresentȱa validȱbasisȱtoȱquestionȱaȱjudge sȱimpartiality,ȱLitekyȱv.ȱUnitedȱStates,ȱ510ȱU.S.ȱ540,ȱ555ȱ(1994), andȱDupreeȱhasȱpresentedȱnoȱreasonȱwhyȱtheȱjudgeȱcouldȱnotȱfairlyȱruleȱinȱhisȱcase followingȱremand,ȱseeȱCollinsȱv.ȱIllinois,ȱ554ȱF.3dȱ693,ȱ697ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009);ȱseeȱalsoȱLiteky,ȱ510 U.S.ȱatȱ551ȱ( Itȱhasȱlongȱbeenȱregardedȱasȱnormalȱandȱproperȱforȱaȱjudgeȱtoȱsitȱinȱtheȱsame caseȱuponȱitsȱremand,ȱandȱtoȱsitȱinȱsuccessiveȱtrialsȱinvolvingȱtheȱsameȱdefendant. ). ȱ Finally,ȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱdidȱnotȱabuseȱitsȱdiscretionȱinȱdenyingȱDupree sȱpostȬtrial requestȱforȱreappointmentȱofȱcounsel.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱappliedȱtheȱcorrectȱlegalȱstandardȱand basedȱitsȱdecisionȱonȱfactsȱsupportedȱbyȱtheȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱSantiagoȱv.ȱWalls,ȱ599ȱF.3dȱ749,ȱ760Ȭ 61ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2010);ȱPruittȱv.ȱMote,ȱ503ȱF.3dȱ647,ȱ658ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2007)ȱ(enȱbanc).ȱȱTheȱcourt consideredȱDupree sȱargumentsȱregardingȱtheȱcomplexityȱofȱhisȱclaimsȱandȱhisȱexperience withȱmentalȱillness,ȱbutȱnotedȱthatȱDupreeȱhadȱbeenȱableȱtoȱadequatelyȱfileȱtwoȱproȱseȱpostȬ trialȱmotions.ȱȱTheȱcourtȱaddedȱthatȱDupreeȱhadȱfoundȱfaultȱwithȱeachȱofȱtheȱfourȱlawyers recruitedȱtoȱassistȱhimȱandȱhadȱsimplyȱbeenȱunableȱtoȱmaintainȱanȱattorneyȬclient relationship.ȱȱUnderȱtheseȱcircumstances,ȱweȱconcludeȱthatȱtheȱcourt sȱdecisionȱtoȱdenyȱthe reappointmentȱofȱcounselȱwasȱreasonable.ȱȱSeeȱPruitt,ȱ503ȱF.3dȱatȱ658Ȭ59.ȱ Accordingly,ȱweȱAFFIRMȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourt.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
