Polzin v. Gage
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3415
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Polzin pled guilty to six counts of sexual abuse of two teens; at sentencing, past abuse by his uncle was considered as a mitigating factor.
- Special prosecutor questioned the abuse and mitigation; prosecutor believed Polzin was portraying himself as a victim to excuse conduct.
- State judge relied on the investigation, found the abuse more probable than not, and sentenced Polzin to 30 years.
- Polzin pursued postconviction relief and filed a parallel federal §1983 suit against the prosecutor, judge, court reporter, and DCI investigators.
- District court dismissed the federal action as barred by Heck v. Humphrey and for failure to state a claim; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck bars merits or allows review on the merits | Polzin urged stay or merits review despite Heck. | Gage urged Heck preclusion of claims tied to a still-pending conviction. | Heck is non-jurisdictional and may be bypassed to reach merits. |
| Whether the state judge is absolutely immune from §1983 claims | Polzin claimed the judge’s conduct during sentencing violated rights. | Judge acted within jurisdiction and is absolutely immune for judicial acts. | State judge has absolute immunity for judicial acts; claims against the judge fail. |
| Whether the court reporter is immune from §1983 liability | Polzin alleged transcript fabrication by the court reporter. | Reporter immunity not absolute; transcripts could be relied upon. | Court reporter immunity is not absolute; however, accompanying exhibits undermine Polzin's claims, supporting dismissal on that basis. |
| Whether the special prosecutor and DCI investigators are immune for prosecutorial/witness conduct | Polzin claimed falsified evidence and insufficient investigation. | Prosecutorial and witness immunity bars §1983 claims for conduct in prosecutorial process. | Absolute immunity applies to the special prosecutor; §§1983 claims against prosecutor and DCI investigators are barred. |
| What is the proper disposition on remand for out-of-court investigations claims | Polzin urged reconsideration or amendment to address out-of-court investigation failures. | Court should resolve Heck and merits; dismiss or remand as appropriate. | Remand for district court to address the out-of-court investigation claims; if dismissal is with prejudice, explain basis; if only Heck applies, dismiss without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (Supreme Court 1994) (bar on §1983 claims challenging criminal judgments absent invalidation)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court 2007) (tolls accrual rules; district courts may stay when appropriate)
- Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (Supreme Court 1983) (witness/prosecutorial immunity in §1983 actions)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (prosecutorial immunity from §1983 liability)
- Loubser v. Thacker, 440 F.3d 439 (7th Cir. 2006) (absolute immunity for judges in §1983 actions)
- John v. Barron, 897 F.2d 1387 (7th Cir. 1990) (absolute immunity for judges in judicial acts)
- Okoro v. Bohman, 164 F.3d 1059 (7th Cir. 1999) (Heck not jurisdictional; waivable defense)
- Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir. 1995) (Heck defense and waiver considerations)