Cleother Tidwell v. Bryce Hicks, 791 F.3d 704

Tidwell, an Illinois prisoner, sued three guards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect and excessive-force claims stemming from a November 30, 2008 incident at Pinckneyville Correctional Center.
Tidwell had prior conflicts with inmate Hoyle, who delivered meals and allegedly provoked Tidwell; an earlier incident involved urine being thrown and a report written by guard Johnson.
Tidwell testified guards Hick(s), Harbison, and Johnson conspired to have Hoyle beat him while he would be handcuffed and unable to resist; defendants disputed this account, claiming Tidwell dashed from his cell and was restrained and injured when he slipped.
After Tidwell rested, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for Johnson and Harbison on the failure-to-protect claim and denied that motion as to Hicks; the jury returned a verdict for Hicks on both claims.
Tidwell objected to the district court’s refusal to give a missing‑witness adverse-inference instruction and later challenged the district court’s refusal to recruit replacement counsel after his attorneys withdrew.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed: no evidence showed Johnson or Harbison had actual knowledge of imminent risk; the missing-witness instruction claim was forfeited and, in any event, the absent witnesses were not shown to be peculiarly within defendants’ control; and Tidwell failed to show prejudice from the district court’s decision not to recruit new counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure-to-protect (Johnson, Harbison)	No requirement to show guards had prior knowledge; their inaction while Hicks restrained him suffices	Plaintiffs must show defendants had actual knowledge of substantial risk; no evidence Johnson was present or Harbison aware	Affirmed for Johnson and Harbison — plaintiff failed to show actual knowledge
Excessive force (Hicks)	Hicks used excessive force by restraining him to enable the attack	Hicks’ restraint was reasonable to control a prisoner who ran from his cell	Jury verdict for Hicks upheld (district court denied JMOL as to Hicks)
Missing‑witness instruction	Jury should be told they may infer missing witnesses’ testimony would be unfavorable to defendants	Instruction unnecessary; potential witnesses were not exclusively under defendants’ control; argument forfeited	No reversible error — instruction not required and claim forfeited
Recruitment of new counsel	District court abused discretion by refusing to recruit replacement counsel, prejudicing ability to locate witnesses	District court applied Pruitt factors; even if deficiency existed, plaintiff did not show prejudice from lack of counsel	Affirmed — no showing that counsel/investigator would have produced evidence affecting outcome

Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison official must have actual knowledge of substantial risk to be liable under Eighth Amendment)
Mayoral v. Sheahan, 245 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2001) (applying Farmer standard to failure-to-protect claims)
Hahn v. Walsh, 762 F.3d 617 (7th Cir. 2014) (forfeiture of arguments not raised below)
Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 675 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2012) (preservation rules for appellate review)
Oxman v. WLS-TV, 12 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 1993) (missing-witness inference requires the witness be peculiarly within opposing party’s control)
Junior v. Anderson, 724 F.3d 812 (7th Cir. 2013) (district courts should consider recruiting counsel for prisoners when access to evidence is limited)
Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2015) (reiterating need to consider counsel recruitment in prisoner cases)
Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc) (framework for district court’s individualized inquiry about recruiting counsel)
Olson v. Morgan, 750 F.3d 708 (7th Cir. 2014) (no reversal where plaintiff fails to show that appointed counsel would have found evidence changing outcome)
Snipes v. DeTella, 95 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 1996) (prejudice requirement for reversing denial of counsel recruitment)