United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 26, 2019*

Decided February 26, 2019

Before

MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge

AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge

No. 18‐2359

NATHAN HUMMEL,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

VICKI L. COOLEY and

DONNA DAVIS,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:18cv254   

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge.

O R D E R

Nathan Hummel, an Indiana inmate, seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from

a state court clerk and court reporter for allegedly causing him to lose his state post‐

conviction appeal. According to Hummel, they failed to transmit trial transcripts to the

appellate court. The district court dismissed Hummel’s suit for failure to state a claim.

Because Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bars this suit for damages unless and

                                                 

* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 18‐2359    Page 2

until his criminal conviction is overturned through, among other possible avenues, a

federal writ of habeas corpus, we affirm.   

Hummel pleaded guilty in Indiana state court to dealing narcotics, robbery, and

disarming an officer. Hummel v. State, 2016 WL 4958264, *1, 63 N.E.3d 37 (Ind. Ct. App.

2016). While serving a 25‐year sentence for these crimes, he petitioned the state court for

post‐conviction relief, asserting that ineffective assistance of counsel led to his guilty

plea. The court denied Hummel’s petition. He appealed, arguing to the appellate court

that his trial counsel made “unprofessional errors” and improperly advised him during

the trial‐court proceedings, resulting in a guilty plea on the narcotics charge that was

not knowing or voluntary. Id. at *2. The appellate court affirmed. It reasoned that

Hummel “[did] not state with any specificity how his trial counselʹs performance was

allegedly deficient or direct us to any evidence in the record to support his bare

contentions.” Id. Hummel later petitioned a federal district court for habeas‐corpus

relief, again asserting his belief that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The

court denied the petition because it “[could not] conclude that the state court’s

determination that trial counsel wasnʹt ineffective was objectively unreasonable.”

Hummel v. Warden, No. 3:17‐CV‐114‐RLM‐MGG, 2018 WL 1762849, at *4 (N.D. Ind.

Apr. 11, 2018). Both the district court and this court denied Hummel a certificate of

appealability.   

Though his conviction remains intact, Hummel now seeks damages in federal

court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 from two state officials whom he blames for his loss in

state appellate court. He has sued a state court clerk and court reporter for violating his

constitutional right to access the court. He alleges that they “untruthful[ly]” certified to

the appellate court that they had filed the transcripts of his guilty‐plea and sentencing

hearings. That misrepresentation, Hummel asserts, enabled the appellate court to rule

against him, keeping his conviction and sentence intact. The district court dismissed

Hummel’s complaint at screening. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In its view, “the lack of cogent

arguments and citations to the record,” not the omission of transcripts in the appellate

record, caused Hummel to lose. The district court thought that Hummel had his own

copies of the transcripts, so he “could have referenced them” in his brief to the state

appellate court. Because the omitted transcripts did not prejudice Hummel, the district

court concluded, his complaint failed to state a claim.

On appeal, Hummel maintains that he pleaded a claim that the defendants are

answerable in damages for denying him access to the courts in violation of the

Constitution. He contends that he did not have copies of his transcripts, and because the
No. 18‐2359    Page 3

defendants did not transmit them to the appellate court, he lost an appeal that

otherwise would have resulted in the appellate court overturning his conviction.   

   

The problem with this argument is that it ignores an insuperable obstacle to his

suit: Hummel seeks damages from the clerk and court reporter because he believes they

are the reason his criminal conviction remains intact. He alleges that, if they had

transmitted his trial transcripts, the appellate court would have observed his trial

counsel’s errors and invalidated his conviction. But Heck holds that a § 1983 suit for

damages alleging that unlawful conduct produced an invalid conviction is unavailable

if success necessarily implies the invalidity of a conviction or sentence. 512 U.S. at 486–

87. Heck forbids this suit for damages unless and until Hummel first has his conviction

overturned through a federal writ of habeas corpus (or similar remedy), which has not

occurred. See Okoro v. Callaghan, 324 F.3d 488, 489–90 (7th Cir. 2003).

Last, Hummel also argues on appeal that the district court judge should have

recused himself from this case because the judge previously denied Hummel collateral

relief on his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. But the mere existence of a

prior ruling against Hummel does not call the judge’s impartiality into question. Liteky

v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994); In re City of Milwaukee, 788 F.3d 717, 720

(7th Cir. 2015). In any event, because we have reviewed the dismissal de novo and have

decided that this suit is Heck‐barred, no prejudice has occurred.

AFFIRMED