Antonio Mays v. Tracy Johnson
850 F. App’x 981
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Antonio Mays was on extended supervision after an armed-robbery conviction and was implicated in a double homicide in March 2018.
- Probation officer Tracy Johnson filed a revocation petition alleging four violations; an administrative law judge found only a lie to police proved, which alone did not justify revocation, and that decision was upheld on appeal.
- Mays’s initial revocation hold was lifted in July, but he remained jailed on pending criminal charges until posting bail; a different agent then supervised him in the community.
- New lab results later matched Mays’s DNA to firearms from the homicides; Johnson successfully sought to reopen revocation proceedings, issued an apprehension request, and Mays was arrested and held for 11 days before his conviction at trial.
- Johnson withdrew the first revocation petition, filed a new one based on the convictions, and Mays’s supervision was later revoked; Mays sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking damages for the 11 days in custody, alleging harassment and lack of legitimate basis for re-arrest.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson on absolute-immunity grounds; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Johnson’s initiation of revocation proceedings and issuance of the apprehension request were quasi-judicial acts protected by absolute immunity, and that Mays’s 11 days were credited to a lawful sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parole/probation officer has absolute immunity for initiating revocation proceedings | Johnson lacked a legitimate basis; she pursued revocation after Mays had prevailed at the first hearing | Initiating revocation is a quasi-judicial, prosecutorial-type act entitled to absolute immunity | Affirmed: absolute immunity protects initiating revocation proceedings |
| Whether issuing an apprehension request/arrest warrant is protected by absolute immunity | Arrest was for violations Mays had already "won on"; no new basis to re-arrest | Signing an apprehension request is quasi-judicial and immune so long as officer did not prepare the underlying evidence | Affirmed: issuing the apprehension request is absolutely immune |
| Whether Mays can recover damages for the 11 days held pre-conviction | Seeks damages for 11 days of allegedly illegitimate detention | Time was credited to a lawful sentence; no §1983 entitlement | Even if no immunity, claim fails on the merits because custody time was credited to sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (functional approach to immunity)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts in judicial phase)
- Tobey v. Chibucos, 890 F.3d 634 (probation officer’s revocation-related filings are quasi-judicial)
- Wilson v. Kelkhoff, 86 F.3d 1438 (no absolute immunity for investigative/parole report preparation)
- Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656 (parole officers not immune for day-to-day supervision functions)
- Copus v. City of Edgerton, 151 F.3d 646 (parole officer signing warrant can be immune)
- Walrath v. United States, 35 F.3d 277 (issuing arrest warrant has judicial characteristics)
- Ewell v. Toney, 853 F.3d 911 (pre-conviction custody credited to sentence defeats §1983 damages claim)