Ennis Brown v. Michael Hicks
676 F. App'x 601
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brown was charged in 2012 with sexual abuse of his children; appointed counsel Michael Hicks served while his law license was suspended twice. Brown’s relationship with counsel deteriorated, counsel withdrew, replacements withdrew, and Brown proceeded pro se for part of trial; standby counsel finished the trial. A jury convicted Brown on 33 felonies.
- Brown pursued multiple postconviction remedies: direct appeal (affirmed), state postconviction proceedings, a federal habeas petition dismissed for failure to exhaust, and prior § 1983 suits dismissed or advised to pursue habeas relief.
- Brown filed the § 1983 complaint at issue against Hicks, the State Public Defender Office, the prosecutor, court clerk, Office of Lawyer Regulation, and jail officials, alleging violations of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments arising from counsel’s suspended license, conspiracy to delay trial, pretrial incarceration, and jail conditions.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, held that claims challenging the conviction or its constitutionality were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, and gave Brown an opportunity to amend limited Eighth Amendment conditions claims. Brown’s amended complaint failed to plead those claims with sufficient detail.
- The district court dismissed the case; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding Brown’s claims that would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction are Heck-barred. The court also affirmed that Brown received two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown may bring a § 1983 damages action alleging ineffective assistance, speedy-trial and related constitutional violations that would undermine his conviction | Brown: claims concern counsel’s license suspensions and appointment procedures, not the validity of the conviction; relief seeks procedural reform and damages, not release | District court/State: success on these claims would necessarily imply the conviction is invalid and so are barred by Heck; habeas is the proper vehicle | Affirmed: Heck bars damages claims that would necessarily call conviction into question; Brown’s claims are Heck-barred |
| Whether Brown adequately pleaded Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claims (pretrial detention, housing with convicted inmates, denial of medical care) | Brown: jail abused and detained him without charges and housed him with convicted inmates, causing cruel and unusual punishment | District court: Brown failed to specify who did what when; allegations too conclusory to state a claim | Affirmed: Brown did not plead specific facts to state Eighth Amendment claims |
| Whether Brown can reframe suit as a non-collateral attack seeking only procedural reform of public-defender appointment system | Brown: seeks only to improve appointment procedure, not to invalidate conviction | District court/Seventh Circuit: argument not raised below and, in any event, lacks a plausible, concrete relief or standing | Affirmed: waiver of new theory and no standing/meaningful relief shown |
| Whether Brown’s filings merit strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) | Brown: (no meaningful contrary contention in opinion) | Court: earlier frivolous complaint and this frivolous appeal justify strikes | Affirmed: Brown has two strikes |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (prisoner § 1983 damages claim that implies invalid conviction is barred until conviction is reversed)
- Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973) (speedy-trial violation may require dismissal of indictment)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standing requires a concrete and particularized injury likely to be redressed by relief)
- United States v. Smith, 674 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial-misconduct claim requires showing prejudice to the defense)
- Hardamon v. United States, 319 F.3d 943 (7th Cir. 2003) (ineffective-assistance claim requires showing prejudice from counsel’s actions)
- Hains v. Washington, 131 F.3d 1248 (7th Cir. 1997) (applications of § 1915(g) strikes standard)