Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02458/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02458-0/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 December 18, 2024*

Decided December 18, 2024 

Before

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge

NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge

No. 24-2458 

SHONDELL KILLEBREW, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

HEATHER RIEHLE VOGEL and 

MARQUELEANA MCMURTRY, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin.

No. 24-CV-514-JPS

J.P. Stadtmueller, 

Judge.

 O R D E R

Shondell Killebrew appeals the dismissal at screening of his lawsuit against two 

parole officers for initiating revocation proceedings without probable cause. 

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because his claim is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 

487 (1994), we affirm. 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 24-2458 Document: 10 Filed: 12/18/2024 Pages: 3
No. 24-2458 Page 2 

This is not the first time that Killebrew has sought to litigate this claim. In mid2023, he filed a nearly identical complaint against his parole officer, Marqueleana 

McMurtry,1 and her supervisor, Heather Vogel. See Killebrew v. Vogel, No. 23-cv-677pp, 

2023 WL 8603111 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2023). In that suit, Killebrew alleged that 

McMurtry violated a policy of Wisconsin’s Department of Community Corrections by 

commencing revocation proceedings against him without conducting a thorough

investigation. Killebrew, who alleged that he was improperly written up for an 

altercation with his ex-girlfriend, maintained that (1) the defendants failed to obtain 

evidence that was favorable to him (e.g., by failing to take statements from his 

witnesses); (2) McMurtry omitted facts from her violation summary that she knew 

would negate probable cause to revoke his supervision; and (3) McMurtry and Vogel 

proceeded to initiate revocation proceedings without probable cause. Chief Judge 

Pepper dismissed the complaint at screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b), 

determining—as relevant to this appeal—that Killebrew’s claims for damages were 

barred under Heck, which prohibits a cause of action under § 1983 that would invalidate 

a plaintiff’s conviction or sentence, see 512 U.S. at 489. To the extent he sought to 

challenge the validity or legality of the revocation, the judge advised him to pursue an 

appeal through the state court system or petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. In March 2024, she denied Killebrew’s request to reopen and 

reconsider the case. 

The following month, Killebrew filed this suit, reasserting essentially the same 

claims against the same defendants. The case was assigned to Judge Stadtmueller, 

who—apparently unaware of Killebrew’s prior case—dismissed it at screening with 

prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judge Stadtmueller construed Killebrew’s claims as 

challenging not the parole agents’ collection of evidence, but only their decision to 

initiate revocation proceedings, and found that these defendants were absolutely 

immune from suit. Killebrew appealed. 

At the outset, we note that although Killebrew’s filing here resembles his prior 

suit, it is not claim-precluded. Claim preclusion applies only when the claim in the 

previous suit was “decided on the merits,” United States ex rel. Conner v. Mahajan, 

877 F.3d 264, 271 (7th Cir. 2017), and a claim dismissed under Heck—as was Killebrew’s 

prior suit—is not a merits determination, Johnson v. Rogers, 944 F.3d 966, 968 (7th Cir. 

2019). (A claim barred under Heck does not accrue until the conviction or sentence is 

1 In Killebrew’s prior suit, the district judge mistakenly referred to McMurtry as “Moriartry.” 

Case: 24-2458 Document: 10 Filed: 12/18/2024 Pages: 3
No. 24-2458 Page 3 

invalidated on appeal, through a collateral attack, or by executive pardon or clemency. 

See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87; Courtney v. Butler, 66 F.4th 1043, 1049–50 (7th Cir. 2023).) 

Killebrew argues that Judge Stadtmueller construed his complaint too narrowly 

and overlooked his allegation that McMurtry failed to thoroughly investigate his 

purported violation of supervision. But this argument is beside the point because his 

suit remains barred under Heck.2 Heck’s favorable-termination requirement has been 

extended to apply to claims like Killebrew’s that supervised release was improperly 

revoked. See Courtney, 66 F.4th at 1049–50 (collecting cases). 

We close with an observation about the nature of the dismissal of this case. The 

district court’s dismissal under Heck should have been without, rather than with, 

prejudice. See Johnson, 944 F.3d at 968. We therefore MODIFY the dismissal to be 

without prejudice and, as so modified, AFFIRM. 

2 To the extent Killebrew maintains that the defendants failed to conduct a thorough investigation before 

initiating revocation proceedings, absolute immunity—Judge Stadtmueller’s basis for dismissal—does 

not bar this suit. “Absolute immunity does not ... extend to day-to-day duties” of “investigating and 

gathering evidence for revocation.” Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634, 650 (7th Cir. 2018).

Case: 24-2458 Document: 10 Filed: 12/18/2024 Pages: 3