Terrance Prude v. Anthony Meli

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-1320

TERRANCE PRUDE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY MELI and GARY BOUGHTON,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 17-cv-336 — Stephen L. Crocker, Magistrate Judge.

____________________

ARGUED APRIL 11, 2023 — DECIDED AUGUST 7, 2023

____________________

Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Terrance Prude helped a friend and

fellow inmate file a successful civil rights lawsuit against their

Wisconsin prison. According to Prude, his friend, grateful for

the help, sent him $10,000 of his damages award to help Prude

retain an attorney for his own criminal appeal. But to the

prison’s Security Director, Anthony Meli, the check did not

look like a token of appreciation; it looked like the product of

an illegal business arrangement. Meli seized the funds as

2 No. 21-1320

contraband and launched an investigation, after which he

charged Prude with various violations of the Wisconsin Ad-

ministrative Code, including lying, unauthorized use of the

mail, threats, and enterprises and fraud. Prude had a discipli-

nary hearing on the charges and was found guilty. As part of

his punishment, the $10,000 was permanently seized.

Prude contends that the money was not contraband and

that his hearing was a sham, in violation of his due process

rights. Although Meli was an investigating officer who should

have recused himself from the hearing process, Prude claims

he did just the opposite, controlling every step of the hearing

and directing the actions of the hearing officer, Jeremy Westra,

to ensure a finding of guilt and to prevent Prude from ever

getting his money. Despite statements from Meli and Westra

before and during the hearing suggesting a predetermined

outcome, the district court dismissed the claims against Wes-

tra at the screening stage and later granted summary judg-

ment in favor of Meli on all remaining claims. Because the ev-

idence in the record plausibly supports a due process viola-

tion, we reverse.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

1. The Disputed Funds

Terrance Prude is serving an eighty-year sentence at Wau-

pun Correctional Institution (“WCI”). According to his com-

plaint, Prude used his skills as a jailhouse lawyer to help a

longtime friend and fellow inmate file a successful civil rights

lawsuit against WCI. The friend was eventually able to secure

representation by a licensed attorney, Brent Nistler, for the

case.

No. 21-1320 3

Nistler won the lawsuit to the tune of a $40,000 damages

award. Prude claims that his friend was so happy with the re-

sult and with their lifelong friendship that he used $10,000 of

his damages award to retain Nistler to argue Prude’s criminal

appeal. But Prude did not want Nistler as his attorney—he

wanted another criminal defense attorney, Robert Meyeroff,

to represent him. Prude says that he had Nistler send him the

$10,000 directly so that he could retain counsel of his choice.

That meant that Nistler sent a $10,000 check to Prude’s prison

account.

That $10,000 check raised suspicions for WCI Security Di-

rector Anthony Meli. Because of Prude’s suspected gang

membership, Meli had been monitoring Prude’s non-legal

mail and discovered the $10,000 check from Nistler to Prude.

Meli suspected that the check was part of an improper busi-

ness arrangement between Nistler and Prude. Based on these

suspicions, Meli seized the $10,000 as contraband before it

was deposited in Prude’s account. He later interviewed Prude

about the check and opened an investigation. During the in-

terview, the discussion became heated and Prude threatened

Meli. Meli ultimately charged Prude with lying, threats, en-

terprises and fraud, and unauthorized use of the mail. Prude

admitted to threatening Meli and to the unauthorized use of

the mail but maintained that he was not guilty of lying or en-

terprises and fraud. Most importantly, he insisted that the

$10,000 was a legal gift, wholly unrelated to any alleged

prison violation.

2. Pre-Hearing Allegations

Prior to a hearing on these charges, Prude and Meli spoke

multiple times. During an interview in December 2016, Prude

claims that Meli said “he would make sure [Prude’s] funds

4 No. 21-1320

are put in the state general fund” and told Prude to “forget

about the funds because you won’t get it back.” Meli also al-

legedly “guarantee[d] that the hearing officer wo[uld]n’t re-

turn the funds to [Prude] or the lawyer who mailed it.” About

a month later, Prude claims that Meli offered him what is

called an “undisputed disposition”—essentially, a plea bar-

gain for prison violations and punishments. Meli said that if

Prude pleaded guilty, he would be sentenced to 180 days in

disciplinary separation and the $10,000 would be perma-

nently seized. Prude turned him down, opting instead for a

hearing on the charges.

In preparation for the hearing, Prude sought to call wit-

nesses and submit evidence in his own defense. In January

2017, he sent an “Interview/Information Request” form to Ni-

cole Kamphuis, a member of the prison’s Business Office who

had initially informed him that the funds from his $10,000

check were on hold. He asked her, “Is it true that Meli author-

ized my funds to be put in the state general fund regardless

of what Westra decides at the disciplinary hearing (yes or no

answer requested only)?” Kamphuis apparently responded,

“Yes,” and signed the document.

On January 25, 2017, Prude also submitted a similar re-

quest form to Meli himself. Prude asked Meli several ques-

tions: First, “Can you submit the Meyeroff letter to the [hear-

ing officer] that I gave you?” This was a reference to Prude’s

claim that he had given Meli a letter from Meyeroff, which

would allegedly show that the $10,000 was payment to retain

counsel for his appeal. Next, Prude asked, “Can I submit a

written statement at the due process hearing I have coming

up?” Prude added, “I also have evidence that proves that you

misrepresented the facts in your [conduct report]. … Please

No. 21-1320 5

respond.” Meli answered this request on February 1, 2017,

stating simply, “No—you can’t present your evidence/state-

ment at the hearing. Consistent with policy.” Meli offered no

further explanation, but now contends that he never received

a letter from Prude and, if he had, he would not have withheld

it. Meli did not address the other evidence Prude claimed to

have.

3. The Hearing and the Decision

The hearing on these charges occurred the day after Meli

told Prude he could not submit any evidence. The hearing of-

ficer was Captain Jeremy Westra. According to Prude, Westra

and Meli share an office and Meli is Westra’s supervisor. He

claims that Meli, despite being the investigating officer on the

case, sat at the hearing officer’s table with Westra. He alleges

that Westra took cues from Meli, even though Westra was

nominally the hearing officer. Prude alleges, for example, that

Westra asked Meli if he would like to read the Conduct Report

to start the hearing, but Meli allowed Westra to read it instead.

Further, Prude contends that Westra started the hearing by

saying, “You know my hands are tied on the 180 [days of dis-

ciplinary separation] and seized $10,000 that I have to give

you”—the same punishment Meli had offered Prude weeks

earlier. As Westra said this, Meli allegedly sat beside him and

smiled. Then, after Westra had proclaimed his “hands were

tied” as to punishment, Westra started the hearing on Prude’s

guilt.

At the close of the hearing, Westra found Prude guilty of

the charges. Westra then allegedly said, “you really must’ve

pissed Meli off. You already know what the sentence is which

is the same sentence Meli offered you,” and then ordered 180

days in disciplinary separation and seizure of the $10,000.

6 No. 21-1320

B. Procedural History

Prude filed a complaint on May 5, 2017, alleging violations

of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Four-

teenth Amendment. 1 In his initial complaint, Prude alleged

that Meli had withheld evidence and acted as a biased deci-

sionmaker by denying Prude’s right to present evidence at the

hearing. He also detailed Westra’s “errors” throughout the

process. 2

At the screening stage, the court dismissed the majority of

Prude’s due process claims but allowed Prude to proceed

against Meli on his claim that Meli had violated Prude’s due

process rights by denying him the right to present evidence at

the hearing. Then, finding that no allegations suggested that

Westra himself was a biased adjudicator, the court dismissed

Westra as a defendant.

After partial discovery on the surviving claims, the court

permitted Prude to amend his complaint to include allega-

tions that Meli was improperly involved with the hearing and

colluded with Westra to predetermine Prude’s guilt and pun-

ishment.

Less than three weeks later, Prude filed a motion to rein-

state Westra as a defendant based on these new allegations.

The court denied the motion on the grounds that it was un-

timely and would “unfairly prejudice [the] defendants.” The

1 Prude named WCI’s warden, Gary Boughton, as a defendant only in

his official capacity seeking injunctive relief in the event that he prevails

against Meli.

2 By consent of both parties, the case proceeded before a magistrate

judge.

No. 21-1320 7

court further held that the allegations in the complaint did not

state a claim against Westra because, “viewed in a light most

favorable to Prude, [the new allegations] suggest that Westra

merely followed Meli’s orders, not that he acted out of bias

against Prude.”

Turning to the cross-motions for summary judgment, the

court found that the information request from Kamphuis, and

Westra’s statements before and after the disciplinary hearing,

were inadmissible hearsay and could not be considered at

summary judgment. Even if it considered this evidence, the

court held that it would still grant summary judgment in fa-

vor of Meli because Prude failed to identify what the evidence

would have showed or how it would have affected the out-

come, and further, none of the evidence available supported

a reasonable inference that “Meli inappropriately influenced

how Westra would resolve the charges in the conduct report.”

According to the court, “[t]he most reasonable inference to

draw from Westra’s decision to impose the same punishment

… is that Westra found it to be an appropriate punishment

and … felt bound by policy to direct the money into the state

general fund.”

The court also found the pre-hearing statements from Meli

and Westra similarly benign: “Meli’s assertion [that Prude

would not get the money back] suggest[s] that he was confi-

dent in the charges lodged against Prude, not that he was or-

chestrating the outcome of the disciplinary hearing”; and in

the absence of any incriminating communications between

Meli and Westra, “the only reasonable inference to be drawn

is that Westra felt his ‘hands were tied’ because he had re-

viewed the charges and knew he would have to confiscate the

8 No. 21-1320

funds, not that Meli told him to find Prude guilty and to im-

pose a specific punishment.” This appeal followed.

II. Analysis

Prude alleges that his due process rights were violated at

three separate times because Meli (1) confiscated his $10,000

check without a hearing, (2) prevented him from presenting

any evidence at the subsequent disciplinary hearing, and (3)

conspired with Westra to subject him to a biased tribunal. We

review each of these claims de novo. The court decided the

first two claims at screening, thus, we take all facts alleged in

the complaint as true and make all reasonable inferences in

Prude’s favor. Schillinger v. Kiley, 954 F.3d 990, 993–94 (7th Cir.

2020). The court rejected the third claim at summary judg-

ment, so we construe all facts and draw reasonable inferences

in favor of Prude. Kemp v. Liebel, 877 F.3d 346, 350 (7th Cir.

2017) (citation omitted).

A. Due Process Claims Against Meli

“A prisoner challenging the process he was afforded in a

prison disciplinary proceeding must meet two requirements.”

Scruggs v. Jordan, 485 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir. 2007). First, a pris-

oner must show that “he has a liberty or property interest that

the state has interfered with.” Id. Meli has conceded this ele-

ment for the purposes of appeal. 3 After clearing this hurdle, a

3 On appeal, Meli argues that Prude does not have a protected prop-

erty interest in the $10,000. At the screening stage, however, the district

court found that “Prude’s $10,000 qualifies as a deprivation of a property

interest.” Prude relied on this ruling at summary judgment, and Meli did

not contest this finding. Any argument that Prude lacks a protected prop-

erty interest is thus waived for the purposes of this appeal. Taylor v. Brown,

787 F.3d 851, 860 (7th Cir. 2015).

No. 21-1320 9

prisoner must show that “the procedures he was afforded

upon that deprivation were constitutionally deficient.” Id.

It is well-settled that due process in a prison disciplinary

hearing requires advance notice of the charges, a hearing be-

fore an impartial decisionmaker, the right to call witnesses

and present evidence (when consistent with institutional

safety), and a written explanation of the outcome. 4 Id. At the

same time, these procedural requirements are not overly

rigid. See Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674, 678 (7th Cir. 2003). Any

procedures required in a prison “must balance the inmate’s

interest in avoiding loss … against the needs of the prison,

and some amount of flexibility and accommodation is re-

quired.” Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. Because of the unique issues

present in the prison context and the need to maintain safety

and order, “[r]ules of procedure may be shaped by consider-

ation of the risks of error and should also be shaped by the

consequences which will follow their adoption.” Id. at 567 (ci-

tations omitted).

4 Defendants contend that this standard applies only to deprivations

of liberty, not deprivations of property. But neither our case law nor the

Supreme Court case on which it relies, Wolff v. McDonnell, draws such a

distinction. In fact, Wolff, which developed the constitutional procedural

requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings, explicitly equated the

process required to protect a prisoner’s liberty interest to property interest

protections. 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974) (“This analysis as to liberty parallels

the accepted due process analysis as to property.”); see also Burns v. Pa.

Dep't of Corr., 642 F.3d 163, 172 (3d Cir. 2011) (rejecting a nearly identical

argument).

10 No. 21-1320

1. Impartial Decisionmaker

The crux of Prude’s due process claim is that he was de-

prived of his right to an impartial decisionmaker. 5

5 Meli claims that, because his “alleged actions in depriving Prude of

a neutral decisionmaker would have been ‘random and unauthorized,’”

due process only requires adequate post-deprivation remedies under state

law. See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 541–43 (1981). Meli waived this ar-

gument on appeal by failing to raise it below. Henry v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769,

787 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc). But even if we were to consider it, the argu-

ment would fail.

First, the Parratt doctrine does not apply to claims alleging that

wrongful conduct corrupted fair fact-finding in the criminal jus-

tice system. No court has suggested as much. [Prude’s] claims

seek to vindicate rights of fundamental fairness and thus differ in

kind from procedural due process claims governed by Parratt,

which seek only notice and a hearing before a deprivation occurs.

Second, the defendants’ broad reading of Parratt cannot stand in

light of later limiting cases. Those cases have made clear that Par-

ratt is limited to a narrow category of due process cases where the

plaintiff claims he was denied a meaningful pre-deprivation hear-

ing, but under circumstances where the very notion of a pre-dep-

rivation hearing would be impractical and even nonsensical, and

where the deprivation was not carried out through established

state procedures.

Armstrong v. Daily, 786 F.3d 529, 539 (7th Cir. 2015). Here, the deprivation

was not the product of an unpredictable act like that in Parratt and was

conducted pursuant to established state procedures. See Wis. Admin.

Code § 303.09(1) (“Any employee who believes that an item is contraband

may seize the item.”). Because “‘the property deprivation is effected pur-

suant to an established state procedure,’ Parratt is irrelevant.” Bradley v.

Village of University Park, 929 F.3d 875, 887 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting Hudson

v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 534 (1984)). Accordingly, Meli’s claim that his own

bias when enforcing state law shields him from federal due process claims

fails.

No. 21-1320 11

“Adjudicators enjoy a presumption of honesty and integrity,

and thus the constitutional standard for impermissible bias is

high.” Zimmerman v. Hanks, 248 F.3d 1162 (7th Cir. 2000) (ta-

ble) (citation omitted); Piggie v. Cotton, 342 F.3d 660, 666 (7th

Cir. 2003). But this presumption has its limits—“[i]f an officer

is substantially involved in the investigation of the charges

against an inmate, due process forbids that officer from serv-

ing on the adjustment committee.” Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d

527, 534 (7th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); see Piggie, 342 F.3d

at 667. At the other end of the spectrum, an officer who signs

off on investigatory forms only in a supervisory capacity is

not involved enough in the investigation to require recusal

from the hearing process. Whitford, 63 F.3d at 534. We judge

factual allegations of bias along this spectrum of involvement

to determine whether a decisionmaker was impartial in com-

pliance with due process.

Under these standards, Prude’s impartial decisionmaker

claim raises issues of fact that should have survived summary

judgment. An impartial officer substantially involved in the

investigation of an offense cannot decide the outcome of a

hearing. Id. And an investigator cannot circumvent this re-

quirement of due process by placing a puppet in the adjudi-

cator’s seat and pulling the strings to control the decision.

Here, significant evidence in the record permitted a reasona-

ble inference that Meli, the investigating officer, conspired

with or controlled Westra to predetermine the hearing out-

come. The district court erred here by drawing inferences in

Meli’s favor to hold otherwise.

First, it is undisputed that, despite having previously been

warned against doing so, Meli decided what evidence Prude

could submit at his hearing. While this is not enough to

12 No. 21-1320

constitute a due process violation on its own, it does reflect

Meli’s involvement in Prude’s hearing. Just as in Whitford,

Meli prepared the investigative report against Prude and then

performed a role traditionally associated with the deci-

sionmaker: deciding what evidence Prude could present. Id.

Moreover, Meli did so without any explanation or investiga-

tion into what evidence Prude sought to present—this, too,

plausibly suggests biased judgement rather than an impartial-

ity.

Second, Meli’s alleged statements to Prude about the inev-

itable outcome of the hearing support an inference that Meli

controlled the hearing result. Prude alleged that Meli told

him—prior to the disciplinary hearing—that the $10,000

would not be returned to Prude no matter what happened

during the hearing. The district court thought little of these

statements, suggesting that “Meli … may have done so think-

ing it would have elicited a confession from Prude … [or] that

he was confident in the charges he lodged against Prude[.]”

While these explanations may be plausible, it is also plausible

that when Meli stated that the outcome of the disciplinary

hearing was preordained, he meant exactly that—that he al-

ready knew the outcome of the hearing and that it would be

decided against Prude.

The inference that Meli predetermined the outcome is all

the more reasonable when we consider Westra’s alleged state-

ments before and after the hearing. 6 Prude testified that, be-

fore any evidence had been presented, Westra stated, “you

6 As addressed below, the district court improperly held that Westra’s

statements were inadmissible hearsay. We consider them here, as the dis-

trict court should have in its summary judgment analysis.

No. 21-1320 13

know my hands are tied on the 180 [days of disciplinary sep-

aration] and seized $10,000 that I have to give you,” while

Meli sat next to Westra and smiled. According to Prude, this

was the same punishment proposed by Meli in the uncon-

tested disposition offer. And at the conclusion of the hearing,

Westra did, in fact, order that exact punishment. Prude also

alleges that Westra said, “you really must’ve pissed Meli off,”

prior to delivering his verdict. While traditionally these state-

ments may be insufficient, when viewed collectively, and

given Meli’s position of power over Westra as a supervisor,

they give rise to a reasonable inference that Westra was acting

at Meli’s direction.

Although the district court noted the lack of direct evi-

dence of any communications between Westra and Meli about

Prude’s hearing, in cases dealing with discrimination in the

employment context, we have explained that such smoking

gun evidence is uncommon; “[t]he far more common case re-

lies on circumstantial evidence, which allows the trier of fact

to infer intentional discrimination by the decisionmaker.”

Mullin v. Temco Mach., Inc., 732 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2013)

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, in

the prison disciplinary hearing context where prisoners’ ac-

cess to different spaces is severely restricted, it is not surpris-

ing that Prude does not have direct evidence of private com-

munications between conspiring guards.

Because evidence in the record, when viewed together and

in the light most favorable to Prude, plausibly supports the

inference that Meli’s interference in Prude’s hearing violated

14 No. 21-1320

his right to an impartial decisionmaker, we reverse the grant

of summary judgment on this claim. 7

2. Qualified Immunity

The district court held in the alternative that Meli was en-

titled to qualified immunity on any due process claims. This

too was an error.

“Qualified immunity requires a two-part inquiry: we must

determine (1) whether facts alleged or shown by a plaintiff

make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) if so,

whether that right was clearly established at the time of the

defendant’s alleged misconduct.” Lewis v. City of Chicago, 914

F.3d 472, 477 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.

223, 232 (2009)). We have already explained that Prude’s evi-

dence at summary judgment satisfies the first prong of this

test. We now focus on whether the right to an unbiased deci-

sionmaker was clearly established.

“Th[e] inquiry [into whether a constitutional right is

clearly established] must be undertaken in light of the specific

7 Prude also alleges that Meli violated his due process rights by pro-

hibiting him from presenting evidence, such as his letter from Meyeroff,

at the hearing. See Piggie, 344 F.3d at 678 (“[A]n inmate is entitled to dis-

closure of material, exculpatory evidence in prison disciplinary hearings

unless such disclosure would unduly threaten institutional concerns.”).

Any error was harmless, however, because Prude fails to explain why the

evidence would have altered the outcome. See id. (finding any error harm-

less because, “even if this factual dispute were to be resolved in Piggie’s

favor, we are unable to see how Piggie was harmed by the screening of-

ficer’s alleged conduct”). Prude bears the burden of showing prejudice at

his hearing, Vaughn v. Willis, 853 F.2d 1372, 1376 (7th Cir. 1988), and so his

failure to explain how any of the requested evidence would have helped

him is fatal to this claim.

No. 21-1320 15

context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Mul-

lenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015) (per curiam) (cleaned up).

“A right is clearly established when it is defined clearly

enough to put officers on notice of their duties under the cir-

cumstances they confront. … This does not require a prior

case directly on point, but existing precedent must have

placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond de-

bate.” Est. of Clark v. Walker, 865 F.3d 544, 551 (7th Cir. 2017)

(cleaned up). In Meli’s case, the question is therefore whether

it was “beyond debate” that an investigating officer cannot

conspire with or control a hearing officer to directly deter-

mine the outcome of a disciplinary hearing.

The answer is a straightforward yes. If the Fifth and Four-

teenth Amendment protections of due process mean any-

thing, they mean a right to a fair, impartial decisionmaker. See

Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 814 (2002) (noting the

impartiality requirement is “jealously guarded” to “ensure[]

that no person will be deprived of his interests in the absence

of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assur-

ance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him.”

(quoting Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980)). No

reasonable official could believe that predetermining the out-

come of a disciplinary hearing—no matter how that is accom-

plished—is consistent with due process. See Taylor v. Riojas,

141 S. Ct. 52, 53–54 (2020) (explaining that “a general consti-

tutional rule already identified in the decisional law may ap-

ply with obvious clarity to the specific conduct in question”

(quoting Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 741 (2002)).

B. Prude’s Motion to Amend and Reinstate Westra

The district court also erred in denying Prude’s motion to

amend his complaint and reinstate Westra as a defendant. The

16 No. 21-1320

district court held that the complaint did not plausibly state a

claim against Westra and that it was untimely.

“Rule 15(a) provides that a court ‘should freely give leave

[to amend] when justice so requires.’” KAP Holdings, LLC v.

Mar-Cone Appliance Parts Co., 55 F.4th 517, 529 (7th Cir. 2022)

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)). We review a district court’s de-

cision to deny a motion to amend for abuse of discretion. Id.

at 528.

The district court abused its discretion by holding that the

new allegations “suggest that Westra merely followed Meli’s

orders, not that he acted out of bias against Prude.” As out-

lined above, our case law does not require that a deci-

sionmaker have personal animus against a prisoner to violate

his right to due process. Rather, his due process rights are vi-

olated when he is denied an impartial decisionmaker. See

Scruggs, 485 F.3d at 939; Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563–71. If, as Prude’s

complaint alleged, Meli and Westra “worked together … in

issuing a punishment” against him; Westra’s actions were “al-

ready la[i]d out by” Meli prior to the hearing; and Westra was

“following orders” to find Prude guilty and give him a partic-

ular punishment; then Westra was not impartial.

Further, the district court allowed Prude to amend his

complaint to include allegations about a conspiracy between

Meli and Westra to predetermine his guilt less than three

weeks before Prude sought to include the same claim against

Westra. The district court found no prejudice when it permit-

ted essentially the same claim to proceed against Meli, and the

court provides no explanation for how this three-week delay

prejudiced Westra or Meli. So, this Court has no way of re-

viewing the district court’s denial because we do not know

what prejudice it expected, how, or to whom. See United States

No. 21-1320 17

v. Marion, 590 F.3d 475, 478 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Some minimal

explanation is required.”).

Prude’s motion to amend his complaint and reinstate Wes-

tra as a defendant was both based on a plausible denial of his

right to due process and timely. We now reinstate the claims

against Westra and remand for appropriate discovery.

C. Evidence Considered by the District Court

Finally, Prude contends that the district court erred in re-

fusing to consider Westra’s and Kamphuis’s statements as in-

admissible hearsay. “To be considered on summary judg-

ment, evidence must be admissible at trial, …. If the evidence

is inadmissible hearsay, the courts may not consider it. And

when a document contains multiple layers of hearsay, … each

layer must be admissible.” Cairel v. Alderden, 821 F.3d 823, 830

(7th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). “We review the district court’s

evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” Davies v.

Benbenek, 836 F.3d 887, 889 (7th Cir. 2016).

1. Westra’s Hearing Statements

The district court refused to consider several of Westra’s

alleged statements. These included both statements before the

hearing (“you know my hands are tied on the 180 day [disci-

plinary separation] and seized $10,000 that I have to give

you”) and after the hearing (“you really must’ve pissed Meli

off. You already know what the sentence is which is the same

sentence Meli offered you”).

The court reasoned that these statements were “inadmis-

sible hearsay, since Westra is not a party to this lawsuit and

he was not Meli’s agent.” But if the district court had not

abused its discretion in denying Prude’s motion to reinstate

18 No. 21-1320

Westra, Westra would have been a defendant and his state-

ments would have been admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A).

Westra’s statement are also admissible because they are

not being introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)(2) (noting an out-of-court statement

constitutes hearsay only when it is offered into evidence “to

prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.”). Wes-

tra’s statements were not offered to prove that his “hands

were tied,” that Prude must have really “pissed Meli off” or

that Prude “already kn[ew]” what sentence Westra would

give him. Rather, they were offered to show Westra’s belief

that the outcome of the hearing was set, even before any evi-

dence had been presented. See Cairel, 821 F.3d at 830 (“[T]hose

statements were not hearsay because they were not offered to

prove that they were true.”). The court abused its discretion

by excluding Westra’s statements.

2. Kamphuis’s Written Statements

The district court did, however, correctly exclude as hear-

say the document allegedly filled out by Kamphuis. Prude

submitted a request form to Kamphuis with questions about

Meli’s pre-hearing statements. In relevant part, he asked, “Is

it true that Meli authorized my funds to be put in the state

general fund regardless of what Westra decides at the disci-

plinary hearing (yes or no answer requested only)?” Kam-

phuis apparently responded, “Yes,” and signed the docu-

ment. This includes two layers of potential hearsay, the state-

ment by Meli to Kamphuis and her relay of that statement to

Prude. Each layer must be analyzed before the document can

be admitted. Cairel, 821 F.3d at 830.

No. 21-1320 19

Meli’s statement to Kamphuis is from a party opponent

and is being offered against him. Under Rule 801(d)(2)(A), his

statements are not hearsay. Kamphuis’s relaying of that state-

ment, however, poses a problem for Prude. Kamphuis is not

a party to this suit and her statements are only relevant if they

are true, which makes them inadmissible hearsay. Although

Prude tries to shoehorn her statements into two separate hear-

say exceptions, neither fits the bill.

Prude initially argues that Kamphuis’s statement “facially

appears to be a statement by a public office setting out the ac-

tivities of that office.” See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). But Prude fails

to explain—to this Court or the court below—how or why her

statements fall within that exception. It was not an abuse of

discretion to reject this argument.

Prude then contends that the catch-all “residual excep-

tion” under Rule 807 applies to Kamphuis’s statements. An

exception to the bar on hearsay, Rule 807 “provides that a suf-

ficiently trustworthy hearsay statement is admissible if ‘it is

more probative on the point for which it is offered than any

other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reason-

able efforts.’” Dean v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214,

233 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 807(a)). “We construe

the Rule 807 requirements narrowly.” Id. (citing Burton v.

Kohn L. Firm, S.C., 934 F.3d 572, 583 (7th Cir. 2019)). Here,

Prude offered Kamphuis’s statement to prove that Meli had

predetermined Prude’s sentence. That is exactly what Meli

himself allegedly told Prude—and those statements were al-

ready in the summary judgment record. Accordingly, the

Kamphuis letter is not “more probative” on this point than

other available evidence, and the district court did not abuse

its broad discretion in refusing to consider it.

20 No. 21-1320

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.