Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01371/USCOURTS-ca7-16-01371-0/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 July 22, 2016*

Decided July 22, 2016

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 16-1371

TIMOTHY B. WILKS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROBERT RYMARKIEWICZ, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 15-C-0254

C.N. Clevert, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

Timothy Wilks, a Wisconsin inmate, brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against prison officials, challenging a disciplinary conviction and seeking, among other 

things, damages and the restoration of good-time credits. The district court dismissed 

Wilks’s suit with prejudice at screening for failure to state a claim. Because a judgment 

in Wilks’s favor would necessarily imply that he wrongly lost good-time credits, and 

 

* The appellees were not served with process in the district court and are not 

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we 

have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the 

appellant’s brief and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 16-1371 Document: 12 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 5
No. 16-1371 Page 2

Wilks may challenge that loss only through a habeas petition, we conclude that 

dismissal was appropriate. We therefore affirm the judgment, but modify the dismissal 

of his claims challenging the loss of good-time credits to be without prejudice. 

Our account of the facts is based on Wilks’s complaint, which we accept as true 

for purposes of this appeal. See Perez v. Fenoglio, 792 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 2015). The 

chain of events leading to this lawsuit began with a dispute over a work assignment in 

early 2012. A guard asked Wilks to write on a work-placement form whether he was 

willing to take a job in the prison’s food-services department. The guard explained that

Wilks could turn down the work assignment but that he would lose certain recreational 

and housing privileges if he did so. Wilks wrote on the form that he accepted the 

assignment but that he did so “under duress.”

The next day, Wilks got into a dispute that led to a conduct report. A guard told

Wilks that he had to sign a new work-placement form agreeing to work in food 

services—this time, without adding comments. The guard warned that if Wilks added 

comments on the new form, he would lose privileges. Wilks asked for a copy of the 

form he had already signed because he thought it was evidence that prison officials

were coercing him into accepting a work assignment. The guard told him that he could

not have that form and ordered him to return to his cell if he did not want to sign a new 

one. Wilks asked to talk to a captain, and the guard again ordered him to return to his 

cell. When Wilks instead repeated his request to another nearby staff member, the 

guard issued a conduct report charging Wilks with disobeying the order to return to his 

cell. See WIS. ADMIN. CODE DOC § 303.24 (2012).

Wilks was convicted after an abridged disciplinary hearing and lost goodconduct credit. The security director classified his disobedience as a “major offense” 

because it “created a risk of serious disruption at the institution.” See WIS. ADMIN. CODE 

DOC § 303.68(4)(c) (2012). This classification entitled Wilks to a “major” disciplinary 

hearing, which includes several procedural rights, such as the right to a staff advocate

and to confront witnesses. Compare id. § 303.76 (2012) (setting forth hearing procedures 

for major offenses), with id. § 303.75 (2012) (describing hearing procedures for minor 

offenses). An inmate charged with a major offense may, however, waive the right to a 

major disciplinary hearing. See id. § 303.76(2) (2012). Wilks did so by signing a waiver

that warned him of the procedural rights he was giving up and the penalties he was 

facing. He alleges that he signed the waiver only because prison officials would not

provide him with the completed work-placement form, which he wanted for his 

defense. Soon after he signed the waiver, however, Wilks obtained a copy of that form, 

Case: 16-1371 Document: 12 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 5
No. 16-1371 Page 3

and he sought to withdraw the waiver. The security director rejected the request. See id.

(stating that “waiver may not be retracted without the security director’s approval”). At

his abridged hearing, Wilks maintained his innocence but was found guilty of 

disobeying the guard’s order. The prison disciplined him by, among other things, 

placing him in segregation for 45 days and rescinding 20 days of good time.

After exhausting his administrative remedies, Wilks brought this suit to restore 

his good-conduct credit and get damages. He raised three claims that he continues to 

pursue on appeal; all three dispute the validity of the disciplinary conviction. He 

asserted first that he had not disobeyed an order. Second, he contended that, 

because the guard issued the conduct report in retaliation for his comments on the 

work-placement form, his disciplinary conviction violates the First Amendment. 

Finally, he argued that the disciplinary hearing denied him due process because he was

not permitted to withdraw his waiver and was unable to timely obtain his workplacement form to use at the hearing. 

The district judge dismissed Wilks’s suit with prejudice at screening for failure to 

state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). (The judge did not specify whether the 

dismissal was with or without prejudice, but the judge’s silence, combined with his

conclusion that Wilks had failed to state a claim, signify that the dismissal was with

prejudice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b); Swanigan v. City of Chicago, 775 F.3d 953, 959 n.2

(7th Cir. 2015).) The judge concluded that Wilks failed to state a claim of retaliation 

because he identified no protected speech. Nor had the defendants deprived Wilks of 

due process, the judge continued, because Wilks validly waived his major-hearing

rights and the hearing officer reviewed the work-placement form before finding him

guilty. Wilks moved unsuccessfully for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 59(e). After filing a notice of appeal, Wilks filed another motion in the district 

court to add a new claim: he maintained that prison officials were now retaliating 

against him for filing this suit by denying him access to the law library; he sought leave 

to amend his complaint to include these allegations and enjoin the retaliation. Because 

this appeal was pending, the district judge denied the motion.

On appeal, Wilks first argues that the district judge improperly dismissed his 

suit, but for a different reason we conclude that dismissal was warranted. Under 

Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 646–48 (1997), a claim is not cognizable under § 1983 if it

necessarily implies that a conviction depriving an inmate of good-time credits was 

invalid. See also Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994) (holding that damages 

remedy that necessarily implies invalidity of criminal conviction is not permitted while 

Case: 16-1371 Document: 12 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 5
No. 16-1371 Page 4

conviction stands); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that writ of 

habeas corpus is sole remedy in federal court for prisoner seeking restoration of 

good-time credits). Wilks’s § 1983 claims rest on the premise that his disciplinary 

conviction resulted from a trumped up, retaliatory conduct report and a deprivation of 

due process, so a judgment in his favor would necessarily imply that he was wrongly 

deprived of good-time credits. The only way for Wilks to challenge in federal court a 

disciplinary conviction that prolongs his custody is by filing a habeas petition under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 

2000). Thus, though dismissal was proper, Wilks’s suit should have been dismissed 

without prejudice, as that is the type of dismissal that applies to actions barred by Heck

or Edwards. See, e.g., Moore v. Burge, 771 F.3d 444, 446 (7th Cir. 2014); Copus v. City of 

Edgerton, 96 F.3d 1038, 1039 (7th Cir. 1996).

We have considered whether we can “convert” this case to a § 2254 petition, but 

conclude that we cannot. Generally a court cannot on its own convert a § 1983 suit to 

one under § 2254; the two kinds of actions have different conditions, different 

defendants (or respondents), and different consequences. See, e.g., Moore v. Pemberton, 

110 F.3d 22 (7th Cir. 1997); Copus, 96 F.3d at 1039. A district judge may convert a § 1983 

suit into a habeas petition only if the litigant is notified of the judge’s intent, warned of 

the consequences, and given a chance to withdraw or amend the petition. See Castro v. 

United States, 540 U.S. 375, 382–83 (2003); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 388–89 

(7th Cir. 2005). None of those conditions is satisfied here, and recasting Wilks’s filing 

sua sponte on appeal would thus be inappropriate. 

Finally, Wilks challenges the district judge’s denial of his requests for leave to 

amend his complaint and for injunctive relief. But the judge could not grant either 

request because Wilks filed his motion while this appeal was pending, and “a district 

court is divested of jurisdiction once a notice of appeal is filed.” Ameritech Corp. v. Int'l 

Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 21, 543 F.3d 414, 418 (7th Cir. 2008); see Hughes v. Farris, 

809 F.3d 330, 333–34 (7th Cir. 2015). Wilks is not without recourse, however. If prison 

officials are, as he asserts, depriving him of library access because he filed this suit, he 

may bring First Amendment claims of retaliation and denial of access to the courts by 

filing a new suit (and paying a new filing fee). See Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 420–21

(7th Cir. 2011) (explaining that inmate stated a claim of First Amendment retaliation by 

alleging that prison punished him for complaining about mistreatment by limiting his 

library access and firing him from job); Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965, 968–69 (7th Cir.

2006) (recognizing inmate’s access-to-courts claim based on reduced access to prison 

law library).

Case: 16-1371 Document: 12 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 5
No. 16-1371 Page 5

We MODIFY the district court’s judgment so that Wilks’s claims challenging the 

validity of his disciplinary conviction are dismissed without prejudice. As so modified, 

the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 16-1371 Document: 12 Filed: 07/22/2016 Pages: 5