Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02654/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02654-0/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 January 7, 2025*

Decided January 8, 2025 

Before

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge 

JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge

No. 24-2654 

PHILIP PADILLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMIE KUHN, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 24-CV-821-JPS

J.P. Stadtmueller, 

Judge.

O R D E R

Philip Padilla appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights suit challenging the 

constitutionality of his prior state criminal arrest and conviction. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

The district court dismissed Padilla’s complaint as time-barred. We affirm.

* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. We have 

agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief and record adequately present the facts 

and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 24-2654 Document: 9 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-2654 Page 2 

Padilla was arrested in Oconto County, Wisconsin, in August 2017. He pleaded 

no contest in Wisconsin state court to enticing a child to engage in sexual contact, 

see WIS. STAT. § 948.07(1) (2017), and was sentenced in March 2018 to 15 months’ 

imprisonment and three years’ extended supervision. 

In July 2024, Padilla filed this lawsuit, alleging that the arresting officer

entrapped him, used excessive force while arresting him, and later—during pretrial 

detention—placed him in a frigid, isolated cell; and that his defense lawyer rendered 

ineffective assistance. The district court screened Padilla’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2), dismissed any claims that implied the invalidity of his criminal conviction 

under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and dismissed the remaining claims as 

lacking detail. The court also apprised Padilla that his claims might be barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations and that any attempt to amend his complaint must 

address such timing issues. 

Padilla amended his complaint to add additional police officer defendants and 

remove other defendants. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It found 

that Padilla’s claims against the officers were time-barred because the Wisconsin statute 

of limitations—which in August 2017 was six years,1 WIS. STAT. § 893.53 (2016)—passed 

before Padilla filed his complaint. The court also ruled that Padilla could not sue his 

former defense attorney under § 1983 because public defenders performing traditional

lawyers’ functions are not state actors, and a § 1983 suit was not a proper vehicle to 

challenge the validity of his conviction.

Padilla’s appellate brief rehashes his allegations and hardly engages the district 

court’s rationale (as required under FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman, 

241 F.3d 544, 545–56 (7th Cir. 2001)), but we understand him generally to argue for the 

first time that restrictions on his internet access prevented him from filing his complaint 

sooner. However, we may not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, Henry 

v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769, 785 (7th Cir. 2020), and Padilla failed to mention any 

impediments when invited by the district court to file an amended complaint that 

addressed statute-of-limitations concerns. 

To the extent Padilla challenges the dismissal of his ineffective-assistance claim 

against his defense attorney, that claim was properly dismissed because public 

1 The Wisconsin statute of limitations was shortened in April 2018 to three years. See Cielak v. 

Nicolet Union High Sch. Dist., 112 F.4th 472, 477 (7th Cir. 2024).

Case: 24-2654 Document: 9 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-2654 Page 3 

defenders do not act under color of state law when performing the traditional functions 

of counsel. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981). 

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-2654 Document: 9 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pages: 3