Reynolds v. 3rd District Arresting Officer
2:21-cv-00874
| E.D. Wis. | Dec 31, 2021Background
- Plaintiff Deven R. Reynolds (also known as Devin Jones), detained in Milwaukee County Jail, sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging due-process violations from being arrested, charged and prosecuted under an incorrect name (claiming a long‑standing misnomer beginning in youth).
- He named as defendants: the 3rd District arresting officer, Judge Janet Protasiewicz, public defender Anna Marie Wineke, and “Milwaukee County Courts and Correctional Facilities.”
- Plaintiff seeks correction of records, disciplinary action, policy changes, mental‑health costs and $150,000 in damages for mental, emotional and financial harm.
- Court review of state dockets showed the plaintiff pleaded guilty in two 2017 Milwaukee County cases under the name Devin R. Jones and has a pending 2019 case; only a paternity action lists an alias mapping Devin R. Jones to Deven R. Reynolds.
- The court granted in forma pauperis, screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915A, and dismissed the action as frivolous and for failure to state a §1983 claim, assessing a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g) and ordering payment of the remaining filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due‑process claim for prosecution under wrong name | Reynolds: being prosecuted/convicted under an incorrect name violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights | State: no constitutional right to be prosecuted under a particular name; claim is a misnomer, not misidentification | Dismissed as frivolous; misnomer does not state a §1983 due‑process claim |
| Arresting officer liability | Officer failed to verify name and prosecuted him under wrong name causing harm | Officer had probable cause and no duty to ensure a particular name; arresting the right person is lawful | Officer not liable; claim fails |
| Judicial immunity for Judge Protasiewicz | Judge ignored plaintiff’s assertions and failed to correct name | Judicial actions are protected by absolute immunity for judicial functions | Claim against judge barred by absolute judicial immunity |
| Public defender liability (Wineke) | Public defender failed to correct or challenge the name issue | Defense counsel are not state actors under §1983 | Claim against Wineke dismissed; private/public defender not liable under §1983 |
| Suitability of named institutional defendant | Plaintiff sued Milwaukee County Courts and Correctional Facilities as responsible entity | That label is not a suable "person"; jail not separate legal entity from county | Entity not a proper §1983 defendant; claim dismissed |
| Remedy and preclusion (challenge to conviction) | Plaintiff seeks damages tied to convictions/sentences resulting from misnomer | Damages attacking conviction barred until conviction invalidated; habeas/appeal is proper vehicle | Damages claims barred by Heck; state appeals or habeas are the proper remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. City of Chicago, 631 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 2011) (due process claim concerns arresting the wrong person, not use of a wrong name)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 damages challenging conviction barred unless conviction invalidated)
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (absolute judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity applies to acts closely associated with the judicial process)
- Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312 (1981) (public defenders are not state actors for §1983 purposes)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 8)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (standard for dismissal of frivolous prisoner complaints)