Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01117/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01117-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 21, 2015*

Decided April 22, 2015

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 15‐1117

BODIE WITZLIB,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

KATHY DAVIS and JAMES JUEDS,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of

Wisconsin.

No. 15‐C‐07

William C. Griesbach,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Bodie Witzlib appeals the dismissal of his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

alleging a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause in connection with his license being

suspended twice for the same traffic incident. The district court dismissed the complaint

for failure to state a claim. We affirm.   

                                                 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-1117 Document: 20 Filed: 04/22/2015 Pages: 2
No. 15‐1117    Page 2

Witzlib alleges that a Wisconsin police officer pulled him over for speeding in

2011 and issued him two municipal tickets, one for driving with a suspended license and

another for driving with an expired registration. A local traffic court assessed a fine for

each ticket, but Witzlib refused to pay either fine. He alleges that one ticket was

forwarded to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, resulting in his license being

suspended for two years. After this suspension ended, Witzlib alleges, the defendants

forwarded the second ticket to the Department, resulting in another two‐year

suspension.   

Witzlib filed a federal lawsuit challenging the second two‐year suspension as a

successive punishment for the same offense punished by the first suspension; he named

the judge and clerk of the traffic court as defendants. The district court screened the

complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and dismissed it for failure to state a claim

because Witzlib’s traffic offenses are civil infractions, and double jeopardy does not

apply to civil proceedings.   

On appeal Witzlib disputes the conclusion that double jeopardy does not apply

and maintains that his case is criminal in nature, not civil. But even if we assume his

offense to be criminal, he cannot allege that his double‐jeopardy rights have been

violated. Double jeopardy “protects only against the imposition of multiple criminal

punishments for the same offense.” Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 (1997)

(internal citations omitted); see United States v. Van Waeyenberghe, 481 F.3d 951, 958

(7th Cir. 2007). The punishments imposed on Witzlib were based on two separate

offenses—driving with a suspended license and driving with an expired registration.

See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932); United States v. Taylor, 777 F.3d

434, 439 (7th Cir. 2015). Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause would not prohibit Witzlib’s

successive punishments.   

In his appellate appendix, Witzlib includes a motion for appointment of counsel.

But Witzlib has not shown that he “made reasonable efforts to retain counsel” or has

“been effectively precluded from making such efforts.” See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,

654 (7th Cir. 2007). The motion is denied.   

We have reviewed Witzlib’s remaining contentions, and none has merit.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-1117 Document: 20 Filed: 04/22/2015 Pages: 2