Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01325/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01325-0/pdf.json

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

---

*

 The defendants 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)(C).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 14, 2010*

Decided April 15, 2010

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

 

No. 10-1325

 SYLVESTER THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

J.B. VAN HOLLEN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

 

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 10-C-50

William C. Griesbach,

Judge.

O R D E R

Sylvester Thomas was convicted by a Wisconsin court in 1992 of third-degree sexual

assault. See WIS. STAT. § 940.225. According to Thomas, he was scheduled to be released

from prison on October 14, 2007, but, instead, the state initiated his civil commitment as a

sexually violent person. See id. § 980. Thomas is currently held in the Wisconsin Resource

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-1325 Document: 8 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10-1325 Page 2

Center and has filed numerous actions in both federal and state court challenging his

detention. The written decisions from these actions are not in the record, but we know that

Thomas’s civil commitment has not been invalidated. In this latest litigation Thomas is

suing a Wisconsin judge and several clerks of federal and state courts, alleging that they

conspired with the state’s Attorney General and Secretary of the Department of Health

Services to thwart his release from confinement. He brings his latest complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, now arguing that the defendants’ actions violated his Fifth, Eighth, and

Fourteenth Amendment rights. He seeks damages and his release from confinement. The

district court dismissed Thomas’s complaint, reasoning that the lawsuit is barred by Heck v.

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and that the complaint would fail to state a claim

even if Heck did not apply.

Thomas’s contentions are hard to follow, but it is clear that he wants to be released

from his § 980 confinement. As the district court explained, if Thomas wishes to challenge

the validity of his detention, he must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488-90 (1973). Thomas is already aware of this requirement, and, in

fact, on June 30, 2009, he filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in which

he challenges his involuntary commitment and advances some of the same arguments that

he makes in this § 1983 action. See Thomas v. Bartow, No. 09-3480 (7th Cir. Mar. 1, 2010). 

Thomas cannot sue for damages under § 1983 unless and until his detention has been

declared invalid through the proper channels, and, on that basis, his complaint was

properly dismissed. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136,

1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005); Nelson v. Murphy, 44 F.3d 497, 502 (7th Cir. 1995). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

Case: 10-1325 Document: 8 Filed: 04/16/2010 Pages: 2