# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted November 1, 2021 *

Decided November 5, 2021

Before

DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 21-1363

YANANTA LUSA, ** Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SERVICES, et al.

, Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

No. 1:19-cv-03928-RLY-DML

Richard L. Young,
J udge

.

* We have agreed to decide the case wi thout oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and le gal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

** The plaintiff-appellant has used several vari ations of his name in this litigation. We have captioned the case in accordance wi th the way he signed his brief on appeal. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 21-1363 Page 2

O R D E R

Yananta Lusa surrendered to law enforcem ent in Indianapolis after an officer attested in a probable-cause affidavit that he had attacked his daughter’s mother. Lusa alleges that as a result he was unlawfully detained for several hours, blocked from contacting his daughter, and prosecuted for battery. He has sued the officer, the prosecutor, and others alleging that they violated his civil rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because probable cause supported his detention and absolute immunity shields the prosecutor, the district court rightl y dismissed his suit, and we affirm.

We recount the facts that are relevant to the arguments Lusa presses on appeal and in the light most favorable to him. See Cheli v. Taylorville Cmty. Sch. Dist. , 986 F.3d 1035, 1038 (7th Cir. 2021). In December 2017 th e mother of Lusa’s young daughter reported that Lusa had beaten her. Believing that he then faced a warrant for his arrest, in January 2018 Lusa traveled from Tennessee to Indianapolis to surrender to the local authorities. They detained him for a few hours before releasing him to face battery charges. Several days later while in court, Lusa asked to see the arrest warrant; he was
shown an affidavit in which, he concedes, an officer swore out probable cause to arrest him for battery. Lusa says that the judge th en “deceive[d]” him in to signing an order barring him from seeing his daughter, who entered foster care for a few months. The prosecutor later dropped the battery charge, the no-contact order was vacated, and Lusa gained custody of his daughter.

Lusa sued the officer, the prosecutor, the judge, and others, contending that his detention, prosecution, and separation fr om his daughter violated his and his daughter’s federal and state rights. He sued in the Middle District of Tennessee, but that

court transferred the case to the Southern District of Indiana, where the judge granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Among other defects, the judge explained that Lusa’s complaint did not state valid claims. Lu sa’s claim that his detention violated his Fourth Amendment rights failed because he affirmatively alleged that the officer submitted an affidavit establishing prob able cause. Also, Lusa never added his daughter as a plaintiff; therefore, he had no standing to assert that her placement in foster care violated her rights. The judge also determined that the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity. (Immunity shie lded the judge too, but Lusa dropped that claim.) Finally, Lusa had not alleged that any defendant acted with malice, so his malicious-prosecution claims under state law failed.No. 21-1363 Page 3

On appeal Lusa contests the district judg e’s reasoning that th e officer’s affidavit of probable cause defeats his Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful detention. He argues for the first time on appeal that th e affidavit was insufficient to justify his

detention because it referred to the attacker only as the “father” of the victim’s child. Lusa points out that the victim also had a ch ild with another man. Thus, he insists that the affidavit did not necessarily implicate him.

Even if we consider this new contenti on, it does not undermine the judge’s ruling. Probable cause is present when unde r all of the circumstances, a reasonable officer could conclude that the suspect committed an offense. See Muhammad v. Pearson

, 900 F.3d 898, 908 (7th Cir. 2018). Because the affidavit identified the “father” of the

victim’s child as the attacker and Lusa is th e father of one of the victim’s children, his detention for a few hours following his surrender was objectively reasonable. “Probable” does not mean “definite.” “[W]he n the police have probable cause to arrest one party, and when they reas onably mistake a second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is a valid arrest.” Hill v. California , 401 U.S. 797, 802 (1971) (quotation marks omitted). The presence of probable cause bars any § 1983 claim for

unlawful detention under the Fourth Amendment. See Muhammad , 900 F.3d at 907. Because Lusa does not argue that the affidavit falls short of probable cause in any other way, the district court rightly dismissed the claim.

Lusa also contends that he stated a cl aim for malicious prosecution. He argues that the prosecutor pressed charges and pressured him to agree to a plea deal despite knowing that he did not commit a battery. Bu t the prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit because her decisions to charge an d negotiate a plea agreement fall within her immunized prosecutorial duties. See Jones v. Cummings , 998 F.3d 782, 787–88 (7th Cir. 2021).

We quickly dispatch a few final argumen ts. First, Lusa contests the Middle

District of Tennessee’s decision to transfer th e case to the Southern District of Indiana.

But we cannot review the venue decision beca use Lusa did not move in the Indiana

district court to retransfer the case. See Alexander v. Erie Ins. Exch. , 982 F.2d 1153, 1156–57 (7th Cir. 1993). Next, Lusa argues that the cour t never assured itself of its jurisdiction over the case. But he brought federal claims under § 1983, thus subject-matter jurisdiction was secure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Finally, Lusa continues to press claims on behalf of his daughter, but he never moved to add her as a plaintiff. He cannot argue that the district judge erred by not considering claims on behalf of a never-added party.No. 21-1363 Page 4

We have considered Lusa’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.

AFFIRMED