Mitchell v. Does
2:22-cv-00196
E.D. Wis.Feb 10, 2023Background
- Mitchell, a Black man, called Sheboygan police in 2018 after two white individuals pointed loaded guns at him; officers arrested Mitchell instead and charged him with theft of a firearm despite his denial and lack of possession.
- Upon booking, Mitchell alleges he was strip-searched, sprayed with chemical incapacitating agents, physically assaulted at the jail, and held on excessive bail for about ten months before acquittal on August 3, 2021.
- He sued pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (and state law) naming John Doe officers, prosecutors, defense counsel, Sheboygan County, and the City of Sheboygan; he alleges false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and related harms (mental, financial, familial).
- The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
- The Court permitted three claims to proceed against unnamed John Doe officers (false arrest—Fourth Amendment; malicious prosecution—Wisconsin state law; excessive force—Fourteenth Amendment) and dismissed several named defendants (prosecutors, defense counsel, and municipal defendants).
- The Court added the Sheboygan Chief of Police as a placeholder defendant to facilitate discovery to identify the John Doe officers, ordered service by the U.S. Marshals, and directed continuation of partial filing-fee payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment false arrest | Mitchell asserts officers arrested him without probable cause after he was the victim and called police. | Officers had reasonable basis/probable cause (e.g., information from others). | Claim allowed to proceed against John Doe officers at screening stage. |
| Malicious prosecution (Wis.) | Mitchell alleges charges were malicious, lacked probable cause, terminated in his favor, and caused injury. | Defendants would dispute malice/probable cause or rely on immunity/defenses. | Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and allowed the state-law claim to proceed against John Does. |
| Fourteenth Amendment excessive force (pretrial detainee) | Mitchell alleges jail staff used chemical agents and physical force during strip search. | Force was reasonable and not punitive. | Claim plausibly pleaded under Kingsley; allowed to proceed against John Does. |
| Prosecutorial immunity (DAs) | Mitchell alleges DA defendants maliciously charged and pressured plea deals. | Prosecutors invoke absolute immunity for prosecutorial acts. | Claims against Haberman, Scaife, Serge, and Huber dismissed: absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions. |
| Defense counsel § 1983 liability (Jaeger) | Mitchell contends counsel’s cancellation of speedy-trial demand prolonged detention. | Defense counsel (public or assigned) is not a state actor under § 1983. | Claim dismissed: attorney not acting under color of state law. |
| Municipal liability (Monell) | Mitchell seeks to hold County/City liable for officers’ actions. | No allegations of unconstitutional policy, practice, training, or final policymaker action. | Monell claims dismissed for failure to plead a policy/custom/final policymaker basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesal v. Moats, 851 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2017) (pro se screening standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective standard for pretrial detainee excessive-force claims)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for initiating prosecution)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (distinguishing investigatory acts from prosecutorial functions)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 672 F.3d 505 (7th Cir. 2012) (prosecutorial immunity analysis)
- Fields v. Wharrie, 740 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2014) (limits of immunity for investigatory misconduct)
- Gramenos v. Jewel Cos., Inc., 797 F.2d 432 (7th Cir. 1986) (probable cause based on reasonable belief in victim/eyewitness statements)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or final policymaker)