Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03029/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benedict Nichols
Appellant
State of Wisconsin
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 7, 2016*

Decided January 7, 2016

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

Nos. 15‐3029 & 15‐3030

BENEDICT NICHOLS,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WISCONSIN,

Defendant‐Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Nos. 15‐CV‐1069 & 15‐CV‐1070

William E. Duffin,

Magistrate Judge.

O R D E R

Benedict Nichols appeals from the dismissal of his civil complaints for failure to

state a claim. We dismiss the appeal.

   

Nichols filed two civil‐rights complaints against the State of Wisconsin

challenging his past state convictions. In the first complaint, he alleged that he found

several problems with his 1994 misdemeanor convictions for sexual assault and lewd

                                                 

* The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not

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

have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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: 15-3029 Document: 11 Filed: 01/07/2016 Pages: 2
Nos. 15‐3029 & 15‐3030    Page 2

and lascivious behavior, including that there was “NO Citation and or ticket; NO

Arresting officer do to the complaint being a week late or a week prior; the case number

is not a case number at all; there is no year or charge.” In his second complaint, he

challenged his 1997 conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence, alleging

that the citation he received misidentified the color of his car as grey, rather than brown.

In both complaints Nichols accused various state officials of wrongdoing, including

failing to acquit him of the offense, not knowing the case number, and failing to arrest

others. In both complaints Nichols requests the same relief: “Acquit me of this Judgment

so I can sue[.] Wisconsin need’s its Justice Back! You can’t keep the Felon’s in all are legal

offices; on the bench and with a badge.”   

The district court granted Nichols’s leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then

dismissed the complaints at screening for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court reasoned that Nichols may not challenge his convictions

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they have not been reversed or otherwise called into

question. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). And even if his convictions

had been reversed, the court continued, the six‐year statute of limitations for

constitutional claims has long expired, see WIS. STAT. § 893.53; Gray v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399,

409 (7th Cir. 1989), and any claim for damages against the State of Wisconsin would be

barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Thomas v. State of Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th

Cir. 2012). Nor may Nichols seek relief through a petition for habeas corpus because he

no longer is in custody. Concluding that the defects in Nichols’s complaints could not be

cured, the court dismissed the complaints in their entirety.

Nichols, proceeding pro se, raises no discernable argument on appeal. His

two‐paragraph brief merely restates some of the allegations in his complaints,

supplemented by police reports and court documents related to his prior convictions.

But his brief does not address the district court’s decision to dismiss his complaints or

any of the district court’s reasons for doing so. Although we construe pro se briefs

generously, an appellate brief still must contain a cogent argument and reasons

supporting it, with citations to relevant authority and parts of the record on which the

appellant relies. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636, 645

(7th Cir. 2014); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Nichols

has presented no arguments as to why his claims should not be dismissed, we are left

with nothing to review.

DISMISSED.   

Case: 15-3029 Document: 11 Filed: 01/07/2016 Pages: 2