Larry Bracey v. James Grondin
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5273
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bracey, an inmate at Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, alleged excessive force by corrections officers during a July 29, 2005 incident.
- During the incident, Bracey was restrained, struggled, and sustained a bruise on his head; officers moved him to a secure area.
- Security cameras recorded the events but the footage was erased after looping for about three days, per prison policy that did not require preservation absent certain events.
- Bracey informed prison officials around August 1, 2005 that tapes probably exist; an ICE interview occurred on August 3, after which his statement was forwarded for processing.
- Prison officials reviewed incident reports and did not download or preserve the video; Bracey filed suit in 2010 alleging spoliation.
- At trial, Bracey sought court-appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) and spoliation sanctions; the district court denied both requests; Bracey proceeded pro se and ultimately proceeded to trial and lost.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Counsel recruitment abuse of discretion | Bracey argues discovery complexity justifies counsel. | Court considered complexity and Bracey's competence; spoliation not a complex issue warranting counsel. | No abuse; district court properly denied |
| Adverse inference for spoliation | Destruction of video warrants adverse inference. | No bad faith shown; defendants not responsible for destruction; no duty to preserve proven. | No abuse; no adverse inference warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (requires considering both difficulty and plaintiff's competence for § 1915(e) recruitment)
- Farmer v. Haas, 990 F.2d 319 (7th Cir. 1993) (balance of complexity and ability to proceed pro se)
- Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (recognizes discovery-related complexity and limitations for prisoners)
- Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2008) (bad-faith destruction of evidence for adverse-inference instructions)
- Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for adverse-inference instructions; bad faith required)
- Rummery v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co., 250 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2001) (burden to show destruction was to hide adverse information)
- Mathis v. John Morden Buick, Inc., 136 F.3d 1153 (7th Cir. 1998) (destruction must be shown to be in bad faith for an inference sanction)
- Trask-Morton v. Motel 6 Operating L.P., 534 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2008) (spoliation sanctions framework in the Seventh Circuit)
- Coates v. Johnson & Johnson, 756 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1985) (sanctions where records destroyed under routine procedures)
- Santiago v. Walls, 599 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2010) (uniqueness of prisoner posture in discovery disputes)