Brown v. Hertz, 437 F. App'x 496

Brown, an Illinois state inmate, sued county and state jail officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation while a pretrial detainee.
Brown claimed isolation, restricted access to the law library, and interference with legal mail in retaliation for a prior lawsuit.
County employees moved for summary judgment in December 2009; state employees followed in January 2010 with qualified-immunity defense.
Brown sought recruitment of counsel; requests were denied by a district judge and then by a magistrate judge after disciplinary and lockdown interruptions.
A central dispute concerns Brown’s purported timely response to the county’s summary-judgment motion and alleged lost mail.
The magistrate judge granted summary judgment for the county and for state employees’ qualified-immunity, and denied Brown’s Rule 59(e) motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of Rule 59(e) relief was an abuse of discretion	Brown contends lost mail excused delay and merits refiling.	Court treated mail loss as insufficient evidence; declined to reconsider.	Remanded for refiling opportunity; abuse of discretion found.
Whether county summary judgment should be reversed due to the lost-mail issue	Lost mail created a genuine issue where refiling could defeat summary judgment.	Declarations supplied insufficient to defeat judgment; Brown failed to file timely response.	Partial reversal; remand to allow refiling.
Whether Brown’s claims against Gilbert and McGuire should continue	Gilbert and McGuire had meaningful involvement and liability.	They had limited involvement and cannot be liable under § 1983.	Affirmed for Gilbert and McGuire; others reversed.
Whether the discovery denial was error or moot on remand	Prison records could prove retaliation and warrant discovery.	Discovery request was overly broad and moot after summary judgment.	Remand allows district court to revisit on remand.
Whether Brown was wrongly denied counsel	Access to counsel was needed given complexity and materials.	Record supported reasonable decision denying recruitment of counsel.	Reasonable decision; standard from Pruitt v. Mote applied.

Harrington v. City of Chicago, 438 F.3d 542 (7th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for post-judgment motions; need for explanation)
Sottoriva v. Claps, 617 F.3d 971 (7th Cir. 2010) (explains that unexplained reasoning underlies discretion concerns)
Montano v. City of Chicago, 375 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 2004) (context for when discretion requires explanation)
Prizevoits v. Ind. Bell Tel Co., 76 F.3d 132 (7th Cir. 1996) (excusable neglect as basis for 60(b) relief in post-judgment motions)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc; framework for recruiting counsel and assessing complexity)