Churchill v. McConico
2:24-cv-01420
E.D. Wis.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Bryan Christopher Churchill, an incarcerated individual, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against Amanda McConico and Sarah Watson, alleging constitutional violations related to his revocation and treatment during custody.
- Churchill alleged that McConico and Watson were responsible for his incarceration for revocation and that McConico made derogatory comments about his sexual orientation.
- He claimed his fiancée was denied visitation, resulting in emotional distress and miscarriage, and that some of his personal property was not returned.
- Churchill sought transfer to a specific probation and parole location and $1,100 for lost property.
- The court granted Churchill’s motion to proceed without prepaying the filing fee but screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A.
- The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, finding his allegations did not amount to constitutional violations or actionable defamation under state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revocation and Detention by Defendants | Defendants caused unlawful incarceration | Absolute immunity for parole actions | Acts to initiate revocation are immune from suit |
| Derogatory Comment by McConico | Called Churchill gay; claimed defamation | No defense stated (screening stage) | Verbal insults don't violate Constitution or defamation law |
| Denial of Fiancée Visitation | Denied visitation caused harm/miscarriage | No defense stated (screening stage) | Parole officers don't control visitation in detention facility |
| Failure to Recover Personal Property | Loss of items after incarceration | No defense stated (screening stage) | No constitutional duty for agents to collect supervisee's items |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard for screening complaints under Rule 12(b)(6)).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading facial plausibility standard).
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (standard for plausibility in pleadings).
- DeWalt v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607 (7th Cir. 2000) (verbal harassment does not violate Constitution).
- Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2007) (defamation standard under Wisconsin law).
- Mitchell v. Kallas, 895 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2018) (Eighth Amendment claim involving parole officers and medical care).
- Hankins v. Lowe, 786 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2015) (parole officers imposing unlawful restrictions).