Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03239/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03239-0/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 February 22, 2016*

Decided February 22, 2016

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 15-3239

CHARLES WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MELINDA MANNLEIN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Central District of Illinois.

No. 15-1123

James E. Shadid,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Charles Williams, a resident of Peoria, Illinois, complained to Animal Protection 

Services, a county agency, after a neighbor’s dog chased him down the street. APS cited 

the neighbor for keeping a “nuisance” animal, and an assistant state’s attorney was 

assigned to prosecute the citation (a civil matter that the Illinois courts characterize as 

“quasi-criminal,” see, e.g., City of Rockford v. Custer, 936 N.E.2d 773, 774–75 (Ill. App. Ct. 

2010)). The neighbor was acquitted at a bench trial, but six months later the dog again 

 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-3239 Document: 17 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 2
No. 15-3239 Page 2

chased Williams, leading to another citation and prosecution. This time the neighbor 

pleaded guilty and was fined.

Williams then filed this action. His amended complaint, which invokes 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7, names 

as defendants the assistant state’s attorney, the judge who presided over both 

prosecutions, and the (now retired) director of APS. During the neighbor’s trial, he says, 

the prosecutor and judge discriminated against him on the basis of race—the prosecutor 

by not eliciting his testimony that the dog had run amok on other occasions, and the 

judge by acquitting the neighbor. The amended complaint does not allege any 

misconduct by the director of APS. The district court, in dismissing the lawsuit on the 

defendants’ motion, reasoned that the judge had absolute immunity and that Williams 

had not stated a claim as to the remaining defendants.

Williams appeals the dismissal only as to the prosecutor and the director of APS.

Yet there are no allegations in the complaint against the director of APS and no 

allegations of discrimination by the prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecutor has absolute 

immunity from liability arising from the performance of her prosecutorial duties (which 

includes prosecution of civil violations). See Thomas v. City of Peoria, 580 F.3d 633, 638–39 

(7th Cir. 2009); Smith v. Power, 346 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003); Mendenhall v. Goldsmith, 

59 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 1995).

This appeal is frivolous. We order Williams to show cause within 14 days why the 

court should not impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for 

filing a frivolous appeal. If Williams fails to pay any fine imposed as a sanction, he may 

be barred from filing any other litigation in this circuit until he has done so. See Support 

Sys. Int’l., Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3239 Document: 17 Filed: 02/22/2016 Pages: 2