James Edward Grant v. Jeffrey Gill

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 11, 2019*
Decided February 11, 2019
Before
WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge
AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 17‐3561
JAMES EDWARD GRANT,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY GILL,
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 14‐cv‐436‐jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
James Grant, a former Wisconsin inmate, appeals from a jury verdict against him
on claims that correctional officer Jeffrey Gill used excessive force on him during an
escort and retaliated against him after he chose to defend himself at a prison‐
disciplinary hearing. Because Grant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
before the district court or provide us with a trial transcript, we dismiss Grant’s appeal.
* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs
and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would
not significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 17‐3561 Page 2
This case concerns the use of force during an escort. After Grant disobeyed
instructions on the way to a prison disciplinary hearing, Gill pushed him into a wall.
Other guards helped Gill restrain Grant and then strip‐searched him. Grant sued all the
officers involved but the only claims that eventually proceeded to trial were his
excessive‐force and retaliation claims against Gill. The jury returned a verdict in Gill’s
favor on both counts. At no time did Grant file a motion for judgment as a matter of law
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50.
On appeal, Grant asserts that a rational and unbiased jury would have returned a
verdict in his favor because his evidence is “clear and convincing.” But Grant did not
move for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 before or after the jury’s verdict, so
we are “‘powerless’ to review the sufficiency of the evidence after trial.” Ortiz v. Jordan,
562 U.S. 180, 189 (2011) (quoting Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift‐Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S.
394, 400–02 (2006)); Haze v. Kubicek, 880 F.3d 946, 950 (7th Cir. 2018). What’s more, Grant
has not supplied us with transcripts of the trial proceedings, as he must if he wished to
raise a sufficiency‐of‐the‐evidence challenge. FED. R. A PP. P. 10(b)(2); see Morisch
v. United States, 653 F.3d 522, 529 (7th Cir. 2011).
We therefore DISMISS the appeal.

-- 2 of 2 --