Jimenez v. Waller
498 F. App'x 633
7th Cir.2012Background
- Jimenez sues prosecutors under §1983 alleging denial of rights as a crime victim, including the right to a victim impact statement.
- Horner denied Jimenez's requests for information and a victim impact statement during the DeSario case in 2003.
- DeSario pleaded guilty; Rotheimer objected to the sentence, prompting a higher-than-proposed sentence.
- DeSario was paroled in Feb 2009 and reimprisoned in Apr 2009 for parole violation; Jimenez again sought information and a victim impact statement in Apr 2009, which Waller denied.
- Jimenez filed suit in Jul 2011; district court dismissed, holding no cognizable federal right; the appeal affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held §1983 claim fails for timeliness and standing, not deciding whether the asserted rights are constitutionally protected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Jimenez’s claim grounded in enforceable federal rights under §1983? | Jimenez argues federal rights exist via Illinois Victims Act and related federal law. | Waller/Horner contend no federal right is created by state law or federal statute for this claim. | No enforceable federal right found; timeliness/standing control. |
| Does the CVRA apply to DeSario’s Illinois case? | Jimenez relies on federal victim rights law. | CVRA applies only to federal crimes. | CVRA inapplicable; not controlling here. |
| Is the claim time-barred under §1983 two-year limit? | Jimenez’s injury arose when the denial occurred in 2009. | The limitations period began in April 2009; suit filed in 2011 was untimely. | Untimely; statute of limitations bar. |
| Does Jimenez have standing for declaratory or injunctive relief? | Jimenez seeks future relief barring denial of statements. | No demonstrated ongoing or likely future injury. | Lacks standing for prospective relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goros v. Cnty. of Cook, 489 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2007) (state-law rights do not automatically create federal §1983 claims)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (timeliness for §1983 accrual and relief)
- Draper v. Martin, 664 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir. 2011) (late accrual under §1983 claims; timely filing required)
- Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2009) (timeliness principles for §1983 claims)
- Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (standing requires ongoing or imminent injury)
- Sierakowski v. Ryan, 223 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2000) (standing when future injury is speculative)
- McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) (First Amendment protection as a due-process basis for state action)