Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01864/USCOURTS-ca7-10-01864-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William A. Schmitt
Appellee
Sylvester Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

*

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

in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the

record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted June 16, 2010*

 Decided June 17 2010 

Before

 RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

 ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

 DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 10-1864

SYLVESTER THOMAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM A. SCHMITT,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 10-C-171

William C. Griesbach,

Judge.

O R D E R

This is Sylvester Thomas’s fourth lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging

some aspect of his civil commitment as a sexually violent person. See WIS. STAT. § 980;

Thomas v. Van Hollen, No. 10-C-50 (E.D. Wisc. Jan. 28, 2010) (dismissing suit challenging

constitutionality of Wisconsin’s system of involuntary commitment of sexually violent

persons), aff’d, No. 10-1325, 2010 WL 1508515 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 2010); Thomas v. Van Hollen,

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

 Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 10-1864 Document: 14 Filed: 06/17/2010 Pages: 2
No. 10-1864 Page 2

No. 10-C-46 (E.D. Wisc. Jan. 28, 2010) (same); Thomas v. McMahon, 09-C-1009 (E.D. Wisc.

Nov. 2, 2009) (dismissing suit challenging rulings on motions filed in Chapter 980

proceeding and evidence used to have him committed). In his latest challenge, Thomas

sued the psychologist who evaluated him in anticipation of the Chapter 980 hearing. 

Thomas sought damages, alleging that in his evaluation the psychologist falsified data and

relied on outdated criteria to assess his dangerousness. The district court dismissed the suit

before service, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), reasoning that Thomas’s claims are barred by

Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

On appeal, Thomas renews his contentions that the psychologist lied in his report. 

But if this is true, the falsified report calls into question the validity of Thomas’s

commitment, which is based on that report. Thomas may not sue for damages under § 1983

unless and until his commitment has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see Huftile v.

Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005). At this point, Thomas’s remedy for

errors in the Chapter 980 proceeding lies in his habeas corpus proceeding.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 10-1864 Document: 14 Filed: 06/17/2010 Pages: 2