United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted April 10, 2019*

Decided April 11, 2019

Before

AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3514

DEBORAH BURNS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 18-C-1031

Lynn Adelman,

Judge.

O R D E R

Deborah Burns filed this suit against two sets of defendants. First, she has sued

the United States and unidentified jurors for their role in her federal drug conviction in 

1990. She also has sued unnamed persons at the federal Bureau of Prisons for injuring 

her over a dozen years ago. The district court dismissed her complaint. Because the

defendants are either immune or the claims against them are time-barred, we affirm.

 

* The defendants were not served in the district court and are not participating on 

appeal. We have agreed to decide this 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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
No. 18-3514 Page 2

Burns was convicted in 1990 of a federal controlled-substance offense. Some 28 

years later, she brought this suit against the government, accusing the prosecutors of

falsely charging her and the jurors of agreeing to imprison her unjustly. She also alleged

that, over 12 years ago, she was assaulted while in federal custody in Wisconsin and 

that she fractured her shoulder in a federal prison in California. 

The district court dismissed the complaint at screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The 

court explained that the federal prosecutors and jurors were immune from suit, the 

other defendants were improperly joined, and in any case the claims were legally 

deficient. 

On appeal, Burns first argues that the district court erred in concluding that the 

federal prosecutors and jurors are immune from suit. Those “who perform functions 

closely associated with the judicial process” are absolutely immune for acts taken 

during that process. Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 199–200 (1985). This immunity 

covers prosecutors and jurors. See id.; Thomas v. City of Peoria, 580 F.3d 633, 638 (7th Cir. 

2009). And the United States is protected by sovereign immunity. Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 

187, 192 (1996). The district court thus properly dismissed those claims.

Next, Burns argues generally that the court wrongly dismissed her claims against 

the remaining defendants for injuring her in Wisconsin and California. We may affirm 

“on any ground contained in the record.” Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir.

2009). Burns has pleaded facts that block recovery because her claims are barred by the

relevant statutes of limitations. She asserts that she is suing under state law. At the time 

of the events, the limitations period for personal injury claims in Wisconsin was six

years, WIS. STAT. § 893.53; Huber v. Anderson, 909 F.3d 201, 207 (7th Cir. 2018); and in 

California, it was two years, CAL. C.C.P. § 335.1; Jackson v. Fong, 870 F.3d 928, 936 

(9th Cir. 2017). Burns alleged that her injuries occurred before 2005, but she sued in 

2018, at least seven years after the expiration of the longer of these two limitations

periods. “Although the statute of limitations is ordinarily an affirmative defense ... a 

district court may dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) something that is indisputably timebarred, as this is.” Small v. Chao, 398 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 2005).

We have considered Burns’s other arguments and conclude that none has merit.

AFFIRMED