Woods v. Thieret, 92-2820

• Citation: 5 F.3d 244
• Decision Date: 26 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-2820,92-2820
• Parties: Joe WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James H. THIERET and Dennis Hasemeyer, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

Page 244

5 F.3d 244

26 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1206

Joe WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James H. THIERET and Dennis Hasemeyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-2820.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Submitted May 26, 1993. ^*

Decided Sept. 15, 1993.

Joe Woods, pro se.

Eve Moran, Asst. Atty. Gen., John P. Schmidt, Civil Appeals Div., Chicago, IL, for defendants-appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, COFFEY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges.

COFFEY, Circuit Judge.

Inmate Joe Woods sued prison officials at the Menard Correctional Center under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging that the officials violated the Eighth Amendment by not feeding him when he was deadlocked in his cell between June 27 and June 29, 1986. A jury found for the defendants. Woods then moved for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict but the court denied that motion. He then moved for a new trial under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(a) on the ground that the appearance of his witnesses in prison garb and leg and arm restraints during trial prejudiced his case. The court denied that motion as well. Woods appeals the denial of both decisions.

Review of the plaintiff's appeal plaintiff of the Rule 50(b) motion is impossible because the plaintiff has failed to include a trial transcript in the appellate record. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(b)(2) states: "If the appellant intends to urge on appeal that a finding or conclusion is unsupported by the evidence or is contrary to the evidence, the appellant shall include in the record a transcript of all evidence relevant to such finding or conclusion." In moving for judgment as a matter of law, Woods was effectively arguing that there was no reasonable basis for the jury's verdict. Winston Network, Inc. v. Indiana Harbor Belt R. Co., 944 F.2d 1351, 1358 (7th Cir.1991). It is necessary that we review the transcript to decide whether such a basis existed. Because Woods has failed to produce a transcript or demonstrate that one is unavailable, we are in no position to determine whether there was a reasonable basis for the jury's verdict. Thus we must dismiss the appeal. Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 969 F.2d 977, 979 (10th Cir.1992); Syncom Capital Corp. v. Wade, 924 F.2d 167, 169 (9th Cir.1991) ("[b]ecause we lack a transcript detailing what these facts might be, we are not in a position to review this appeal"); Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir.) ("[t]he failure of an appellant to provide a transcript is a proper ground for dismissal of the appeal"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 901, 111 S.Ct. 260, 112 L.Ed.2d 218 (1990); Fisher v. Krajewski, 873 F.2d 1057, 1061 (7th Cir.1989) ("[i]t is obvious that an appellate court has no alternative but to dismiss an appeal if the absence of the transcript precludes meaningful review"), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1020, 110 S.Ct. 719, 107 L.Ed.2d 738 (1990); Fed.R.App.P. 3(a).

The second issue requires further elucidation. Woods, who wore civilian clothing throughout the trial, argues that it was prejudicial for his inmate-witnesses to appear in prison clothing as well as leg and arm restraints. He claims that the restraints and prison clothing served to undermine the witnesses' credibility. See United States v. Garcia, 625 F.2d 162 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 923, 101 S.Ct. 325, 66 L.Ed.2d 152 (1980). The Supreme Court recognized and addressed the potential risk prisoners place on courtroom security in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1060, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970), and stated, "[i]t is essential to the proper administration of criminal justice that dignity, order, and decorum be the hallmarks of all court proceedings in our country." Id. In Harrell v. Israel, 672 F.2d 632, 637 (7th Cir.1982), this court addressed the "danger" certain prisoners may pose to courtroom security, and stated, "[l]ess intrusive methods of insuring security, such as stationing guards around the courtroom, would probably be less effective and may have an even more detrimental impact on the jury than shackles." Id. Because of the lack of respect for law and order in our society, manifested by the utter disregard for human life and the increase in violence in today's world, ¹ we are seeing an escalating number of violent prisoners appear in our courtrooms. ² Thus the trial courts must be ever-vigilant in addressing the risk each defendant, witness or court spectator poses to courtroom security and escape.

The foundational principles important to deciding the case before us emerged from Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353, a Supreme Court case in which an unruly criminal defendant was removed from the courtroom because of his violent and obstructive behavior. Although the facts in Allen involve a criminal defendant, the principles from Allen have been extended to include not just criminal defendants, but inmates bringing civil actions and inmate-witnesses as well. See, e.g., Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354, 357 (7th Cir.1993). In Allen, the pro se defendant repeatedly disrupted the trial with his outbursts including vile, abusive, and threatening language directed at the judge, as well as tearing and throwing his file-folder full of case notes. Id. 397 U.S. at 339-41, 90 S.Ct. at 1058-60. After ignoring a number of admonitions and warnings, the trial court ordered that the defendant be removed from the courtroom. Upon conviction, the defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming his removal from the courtroom violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Supreme Court rejected his argument and set out the following guidelines to deal with unruly courtroom defendants depending on the particular circumstances: (1) binding and gagging, (2) citing for contempt, and (3) removal from the courtroom. Id. at 344, 90 S.Ct. at 1061. Regarding the binding and gagging of a defendant, the Court concluded that the jury viewing the defendant shackled and gagged may prejudice the defendant and thus should only occur as a "last resort." Id. ³

No reasonable reading of Allen can be interpreted as preventing a trial court from taking steps to restrain a potentially dangerous and disruptive inmate, witness, or any other person in the courtroom. Allen addressed the prejudice resulting from a jury viewing a criminal defendant being gagged and shackled. Having a defendant appear in court gagged and shackled to restrain him from loud and disruptive outbursts is far more prejudicial than just shackles or handcuffs because the jury cannot help but notice the gag. On the other hand, handcuffs and/or leg shackles may be kept from the view of the jurors. Thus, Allen must not be read to bar a trial court from appropriately responding to a prisoner (party or witness) who is potentially dangerous or demonstrates a proclivity toward disruption.

Trial courts have always had the authority to maintain courtroom security and since Allen, we have held that a court may restrain an inmate who is a party or witness when it is "necessary to maintain the security of the courtroom." United States v. Amaro, 816 F.2d 284, 285 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1031, 107 S.Ct. 1961, 95 L.Ed.2d 532 (1987); Harrell, 672 F.2d at 636. This standard provides trial courts with considerable leeway in determining whether inmates must be shackled in court, yet for some unknown reason, many cases have held that prisoners and prisoner-witnesses subpoenaed on their behalf may not be required to appear in shackles except in a case of "extreme need." See Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354, 357 (7th Cir.1993), citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 344, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 1061, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); Harrell v. Israel, 672 F.2d 632, 635-36 (7th Cir.1982); United States v. Roustio, 455 F.2d 366, 371 (7th Cir.1972). Although "extreme need" appears at first blush to be a very high standard, we must remember that in Amaro we defined it quite broadly to mean restraints are "necessary to maintain the security of the courtroom." The analysis used to determine when restraints are necessary in criminal cases is also applicable in civil cases, Lemons, 985 F.2d at 357, and in each instance the trial court has wide discretion. Amaro, 816 F.2d at 285; Harrell, 672 F.2d at 636.

In Lemons v. Skidmore, 985 F.2d 354, we remanded a prisoner's case for a new trial because the trial judge failed to determine whether restraints on the inmate-plaintiff were necessary (the magistrate delegated the decision to shackle the inmate to the Department of Corrections rather than making the determination himself). Id. at 358. The question of possible prejudice from the shackles in Lemons was far greater than that in the present case because the central question before the jury in Lemons was whether the shackled inmate-plaintiff was dangerous. "The shackles suggest to the jury in a civil case that the plaintiff is a violent person. Since plaintiff's tendency towards violence was at issue in this case, shackles inevitably prejudiced the jury." Id. at 357. Although we expressed concern for prejudice in Lemons, we were still cognizant of other interests such as preventing the escape of the prisoner and maintaining the safety of other persons in the courtroom including the judge, jurors, witnesses, attorneys, parties, court reporters, clerks and the general public. See id. at 357-59. Lemons required the district court on remand to determine if restraints were necessary, and if so to employ them in a way that "minimizes" their prejudice. Id. at 359.

To resolve the conflict between prejudice and the need to maintain courtroom security in today's era of escalating violence, several circuits apply a balancing test to determine when and how to restrain a prisoner in the courtroom. See United States v. Nicholson, 846 F.2d 277 (5th Cir.1988); Stewart v. Corbin, 850 F.2d 492 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1737, 104 L.Ed.2d 175 (1989) (...