Eugene Devbrow v. Steven Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584

Devbrow, an Indiana prisoner, alleged that prison officers Gallegos and Smiley confiscated and destroyed his legal papers after he told Gallegos that unsanitary conditions could lead to litigation.
Devbrow’s verified complaint claimed the confiscated materials included irreplaceable medical records needed to respond to a pending civil-rights summary judgment motion.
Gallegos and Smiley moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits that they removed excess property as a fire/safety hazard, allowed some legal materials to remain, and were unaware of his litigation.
The district court granted summary judgment for the officers, finding Devbrow produced no admissible evidence that the officers destroyed his materials, and that he suffered no actual injury to support an access-to-courts claim; it also rejected his retaliation claim.
The Seventh Circuit found the appeal timely (tolling from a Rule 59 motion) but affirmed: an email Devbrow submitted was properly struck for lack of authentication, his verified allegations alone did not show destruction or personal involvement, and his speculation about motive could not defeat summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Authentication of email evidence	The email from Gallegos corroborates retaliatory intent and destruction	Email not authenticated; no proof Gallegos authored or sent it	Struck for lack of authentication; plaintiff failed to authenticate under Rule 901
Access-to-courts (loss/destruction of legal papers)	Confiscation and alleged destruction deprived Devbrow of ability to litigate his pending suit	Temporary/confiscation for safety; no evidence of destruction or prejudice	Summary judgment affirmed: verified complaint insufficient to show actual destruction or prejudice required by Lewis v. Casey
Retaliation for filing suits	Officers removed and destroyed property in retaliation for prior lawsuits	Removal was to abate a fire hazard and for inventory/search purposes, not motivated by litigation	Speculation about motive cannot create a genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed
Personal involvement	Verified allegations establish officers’ responsibility for loss	Defendants denied personal involvement; plaintiff offered no admissible contrary evidence	Plaintiff failed to show personal involvement or basis for personal-knowledge assertions

United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.) (circumstantial methods to authenticate email evidence)
United States v. Fluker, 698 F.3d 988 (7th Cir.) (preferable authentication via author or witness to transmission)
Devbrow v. Kalu, 705 F.3d 765 (7th Cir.) (underlying civil-rights litigation referenced by plaintiff)
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (U.S.) (actual-injury requirement for access-to-courts claims)
Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (U.S.) (standards for access-to-courts claims)
Hossman v. Spradlin, 812 F.2d 1019 (7th Cir.) (temporary confiscation alone insufficient for constitutional deprivation)
Watkins v. Kasper, 599 F.3d 791 (7th Cir.) (retaliation requires plaintiff’s conduct to be a motivating factor)
Bridges v. Gilbert, 557 F.3d 541 (7th Cir.) (retaliation proof standards)