Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02261/USCOURTS-ca7-24-02261-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Syris Birkley
Appellant
Kevin Eade
Appellee
John Schaefer
Appellee

Document Text:

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. 24-2261 

SYRIS T. BIRKLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

KEVIN EADE and JOHN SCHAEFER, 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin. 

No. 22-cv-1313-pp

Pamela Pepper, 

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Syris Birkley conceded in a state prosecution that the police had probable cause 

to arrest him, but after the prosecution ended, he nonetheless sued the officers, alleging 

that they arrested him without probable cause. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court 

* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is 

frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

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

Case: 24-2261 Document: 19 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-2261 Page 2 

granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, relying on his state-court concession. Birkley 

does not contest the district court’s rationale for dismissal; thus we affirm the judgment. 

Birkley alleges that he and two others were arrested for their involvement in an 

armed robbery in the parking lot of a Target store in West Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The 

district court took judicial notice of the docket in Birkley’s criminal case, and on appeal 

Birkley does not contest that step; thus we recite the facts on which the district court 

relied. Two men (one of whom was armed with a gun) approached a woman, grabbed 

her purse, pushed her to the ground, and then drove away. Law-enforcement officers 

reviewed a video recording of the incident and identified the getaway car. The officers 

then went to the home associated with that car and arrested two people, both of whom

said that Birkley was at Target at the time of the robbery; one stated that Birkley 

committed the armed robbery. Detective Kevin Eade obtained a warrant, and

Officer John Schaefer later arrested Birkley for the robbery. At his preliminary hearing, 

Birkley conceded that the state had probable cause for his arrest and robbery charge.

Later, on the day of trial, the court dismissed the charge against Birkley. 

 

After his criminal case was dismissed, Birkley filed this suit against Eade and 

Shaefer, but the case was short-lived. He alleged that the officers falsified documents

and lied in the criminal complaint, leading to his arrest, search, and detention without 

probable cause in violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment and the state law 

of defamation. The defendants filed separate motions to dismiss, which the court 

granted. It ruled that Birkley failed to state a claim that the police lacked probable cause 

for their actions because, among other problems with his claim, Birkley conceded at his 

preliminary hearing that the police had such probable cause. The district court then 

declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Birkley’s state-law claim.

On appeal, Birkley does not contest the district court’s reasons for dismissing the 

case, including its rationale that Birkley failed to state a claim because he conceded at 

his preliminary hearing that the police had probable cause for their actions. “Probable 

cause is an absolute bar to a claim of false arrest asserted under the Fourth Amendment 

and section 1983.” Muhammad v. Pearson, 900 F.3d 898, 907 (7th Cir. 2018) (citation 

omitted). Because Birkley disputes neither his concession nor the court’s reliance on it to 

dismiss his suit, he has waived any argument, including one about judicial estoppel, 

see New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001), opposing the court’s conclusion 

that his prior concession in state court defeats this case. See Bradley v. Vill. of Univ. Park, 

59 F.4th 887, 897 (7th Cir. 2023). In his appellate brief, Birkley contends only that his

arrest was invalid because the arrest warrant did not observe that he is a “Moorish 

Case: 24-2261 Document: 19 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pages: 3
No. 24-2261 Page 3 

National” and it was not signed by an “Article III judge.” These contentions are 

frivolous, see, e.g., FED. R. CRIM. P. 1(b)(4); 4(a)–(b), and require no further comment. 

 

AFFIRMED

Case: 24-2261 Document: 19 Filed: 01/08/2025 Pages: 3