Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01147/USCOURTS-ca7-15-01147-0/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 June 18, 2015*

Decided June 18, 2015

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 15-1147

TIMOTHY JAY KAPRELIAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOHN BARRETT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 14-C-546

William C. Griesbach,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Timothy Kaprelian, a Wisconsin inmate, appeals the grant of summary judgment 

in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting that the clerk of a state court denied him

access to the courts. He contends that the clerk failed to file his appeal of a dismissed 

civil-rights suit. Because that appeal was baseless, he suffered no constitutional injury, so 

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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-1147 Document: 23 Filed: 06/18/2015 Pages: 3
No. 15-1147 Page 2

Responding to a report of a possible crime in 2006, the police came to the home of 

Kaprelian and his former-girlfriend, who allowed a search of the house. They found 

evidence, including a videotape, that Kaprelian had sexually assaulted, battered, and 

imprisoned her. During a criminal trial, Kaprelian sought to suppress the results of the 

search. But a Wisconsin state court denied the motion, reasoning that the search was 

justified by consent and exigent circumstances. Kaprelian then pleaded no contest to 

charges of sexual assault and false imprisonment and received a 50-year sentence.

Kaprelian has twice sued under § 1983 to challenge the search of the house. The 

first time, he asserted in federal court that the police violated his constitutional rights by

searching the house and seizing his videos without a search warrant. We held that, in the 

earlier criminal case, “[t]he state court’s adverse ruling on Kaprelian’s motion to 

suppress precludes him from relitigating the constitutionality of the seizure of his 

videos.” Kaprelian v. Bowers, 460 Fed. Appx. 597, 600 (7th Cir. 2012). In the second suit,

filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Kaprelian alleged that the defendants in his 

first suit had submitted perjured affidavits to justify the search. After that suit was

dismissed, Kaprelian attempted to mail a notice of appeal to the court clerk, John Barrett. 

Barrett says that he never received the notice. Kaprelian contends that Barrett refused to 

file it. 

Barrett’s alleged failure to file the notice of appeal is the basis for the current suit. 

Kaprelian argues that because Barrett refused to file the appeal, he denied Kaprelian 

access to the courts on his claim that perjured affidavits defeated his first suit

challenging the search. After the district court allowed Barrett time for discovery, it

granted summary judgment for Barrett, giving several reasons, including that Barrett 

never received the notice of appeal. But we need focus only on its last reason: The district 

court observed that the state criminal court had already upheld the legality of the search; 

thus Barrett’s alleged failure to file the appeal of the second suit did not prejudice 

Kaprelian because “[h]e would have lost in any event.”

On appeal, Kaprelian raises three issues, but none has merit. First he contends 

that the district court erred by crediting Barrett’s assertion that he never received 

Kaprelian’s notice of appeal. But even if Barrett did receive the notice of appeal, 

Kaprelian cannot prevail in this case if the unfiled appeal had no arguable merit. See 

Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349 (1996); Devbrow v. Gallegos, 735 F.3d 584, 587 (7th Cir. 

2013). And it did not. A favorable outcome in that appeal was not possible because—like

his first suit—it attacked the legality of the search, and—like the first suit—that attack

was precluded by the state criminal court’s ruling upholding the search, regardless of 

Case: 15-1147 Document: 23 Filed: 06/18/2015 Pages: 3
No. 15-1147 Page 3

the affidavits in the first suit. What’s more, because we already ruled in the first suit that 

the state court’s ruling precluded relitigation of the search’s legality, Kaprelian is 

precluded from relitigating the issue of preclusion itself, again regardless of the 

affidavits. Thus because there was no possible merit to the second appeal, the district 

court properly granted summary judgment to Barrett. See Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 

403, 414–15 (2002); In re Maxy, 674 F.3d 658, 660–61 (7th Cir. 2012). 

We quickly dispose of the next two issues. Kaprelian challenges the district 

court’s refusal to grant him leave to appeal in forma pauperis. But he did not renew his 

motion in this court, as he could have, see FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5). Instead he paid the fee, 

thereby forfeiting his challenge to the district court’s ruling. See Walker v. O’Brien, 216 

F.3d 626, 631 (7th Cir. 2000). Kaprelian also argues that the district court should have 

sanctioned Barrett’s attorney for untimely responses to his discovery requests. Kaprelian 

does not explain why it was unreasonable for the judge to credit the attorney’s 

explanation that a secretary misfiled the requests and no harm occurred. Thus we find 

no abuse of discretion in the judge’s choice to excuse the lapse. See Collins v. Illinois, 554 

F.3d 693, 696 (7th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 15-1147 Document: 23 Filed: 06/18/2015 Pages: 3