Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02649/USCOURTS-ca7-14-02649-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 19, 2015*

Decided March 20, 2015

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐2649

ANGEL FIGUEROA,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and

VALARIE HAYS,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 13 CV 8375

Joan B. Gottschall,

Judge.

O R D E R

Angel Figueroa, a federal inmate, appeals the dismissal of his suit under Bivens v.

Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against the United States and a federal

prosecutor who, he asserts, violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. We affirm.

Figueroa’s claims stem from preindictment delay in his criminal prosecution 13

years ago. In April 2002 he was arrested, but not until September was an indictment

                                                 

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See FED. R. APP. P.

34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-2649 Document: 18 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14‐2649    Page 2

returned. In the intervening five months, the government, through then‐Assistant

United States Attorney Valarie Hays, sought and received successive extensions of time

under the Speedy Trial Act, once from Judge Kocoras and once from Judge Castillo, in

which to seek an indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), (h)(7)(A). The indictment was

returned only after the second extension of time, and in 2004 Figueroa was convicted of

conspiring to distribute heroin. Two years later he was sentenced to 240 months’

imprisonment, and his subsequent challenges to his conviction and sentence were

unsuccessful. United States v. Figueroa, 228 F. App’x 611 (7th Cir. 2007) (direct appeal);

United States v. Figueroa, 394 F. App’x 315 (7th Cir. 2010) (motion to vacate).

In this civil suit filed nine years after his conviction, Figueroa alleged that AUSA

Hays’s second motion for an extension of time falsely represented that Judge Aspen

already had granted the government a 60‐day extension of time under § 3161(h)(7)(A),

and added, though without much elaboration, that Hays’s deliberate misrepresentation

resulted in a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. He sought damages

from both Hays and the United States (which he also sued under the Federal Tort

Claims Act), as well as his immediate release from prison.   

The district court dismissed the complaint on the basis of Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994). As the court explained, the only remedy for a constitutional speedy‐trial

violation is dismissal of the indictment, see Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434, 440

(1973), and that result necessarily would call his convictions into question. Hays, the

court continued, enjoyed absolute prosecutorial immunity for her challenged actions

because she made them in her role as an advocate for the state. See Buckley v.

Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 273 (1993).

On appeal Figueroa first argues that Heck does not apply to suits under Bivens.

But we have long held that the similarities between Bivens actions and suits under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 warrant the application of Heck to Bivens claims. See Clemente v. Allen, 120

F.3d 703, 705 (7th Cir. 1997).

Figueroa next argues, citing Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978), that Hays

should not enjoy absolute immunity in this case. This argument, too, is misplaced. The

Court in Butz held that executive branch officials generally enjoy only qualified

immunity in damages suits. 438 U.S. at 505. But the Court explicitly distinguished its

holding in Butz from Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976), which conferred

absolute immunity on prosecutors from damages suits for actions taken as the State’s

advocate in a prosecution. Figueroa neither addresses Imbler nor suggests how Hays’s

Case: 14-2649 Document: 18 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 3
No. 14‐2649    Page 3

request for an extension of time in order to obtain an indictment was not consistent with

her role as the State’s advocate.

This appeal is Figueroa’s third challenge to the government’s requests for

preindictment extensions of time in his criminal case. He is hereby warned that further

frivolous litigation may result in sanctions. See Support Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d

185, 186 (7th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-2649 Document: 18 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 3