Courtney Thomas v. Jason Landrum

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 25, 2015*
Decided August 25, 2015
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 14-2241
COURTNEY THOMAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JASON LANDRUM,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division.
No. 11 C 9275
Edmond E. Chang,
Judge.
O R D E R
Courtney Thomas was shot during an altercation with Chicago police officers. He
sued the city and several officers, but all of the defendants except Officer Jason Landrum
were dismissed before trial. A jury found in favor of the defendant officer, and Thomas
appeals. But he has not provided us with a complete trial transcript, which leaves us
nothing to review. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See F ED. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 14-2241 Page 2
The following facts are presented in a light consistent with the jury’s verdict.
See Burzlaff v. Thoroughbred Motorsports, Inc., 758 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2014). In 2010,
Landrum and another Chicago police officer, John Kennedy, stopped a car in which
Thomas was a passenger. The officers ordered Thomas out of the vehicle, but he resisted
and, after a brief scuffle, Landrum shot him in the stomach. In his suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Thomas claimed that Officer Landrum had used excessive force in subduing him.
Thomas was represented by counsel during his trial before a federal judge and jury. The
jury entered a verdict in favor of Landrum after a four-day trial.
On appeal Thomas challenges several evidentiary rulings that were made by the
district court before or during the trial. After Landrum had argued in his appellee brief
that Thomas’s failure to procure a full trial transcript dooms his appeal, see F ED. R. A PP .
P. 10(b)(2), Thomas asked the district court for the transcript at public expense. But
litigants do not have an absolute right to receive a transcript of a civil proceeding at
public expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (allowing indigent litigants to receive transcript at
public expense if “the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not
frivolous”). The district court concluded that Thomas had not satisfied his obligation to
identify a substantial question for appeal, and Thomas did not renew his request for the
transcript in this court or obtain the transcript using other means. Without a full trial
transcript, we cannot discern the reasons for the court’s evidentiary rulings or evaluate
whether Thomas suffered prejudice. Thus, his failure to provide the transcript precludes
our review. See Hicks v. Avery Drei, LLC, 654 F.3d 739, 743–44 (7th Cir. 2011); Morisch v.
United States, 653 F.3d 522, 529–30 (7th Cir. 2011); Learning Curve Toys, Inc. v. PlayWood
Toys, Inc., 342 F.3d 714, 731 n.10 (7th Cir. 2003).
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --