Sylvester Thomas v. William Schmitt ( 2010 )

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 16, 2010*
Decided June 17 2010
Before
RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 10-1864
SYLVESTER THOMAS, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff-Appellant, Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
v. No. 10-C-171
WILLIAM A. SCHMITT, William C. Griesbach,
Defendant-Appellee. Judge.
ORDER
This is Sylvester Thomas’s fourth lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging
some aspect of his civil commitment as a sexually violent person. See WIS. STAT. § 980;
Thomas v. Van Hollen, No. 10-C-50 (E.D. Wisc. Jan. 28, 2010) (dismissing suit challenging
constitutionality of Wisconsin’s system of involuntary commitment of sexually violent
persons), aff’d, No. 10-1325, 2010 WL 1508515 (7th Cir. Apr. 15, 2010); Thomas v. Van Hollen,
*
The defendant was not served with process in district court and is not participating
in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that
oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant’s brief and the
record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).
No. 10-1864 Page 2
No. 10-C-46 (E.D. Wisc. Jan. 28, 2010) (same); Thomas v. McMahon, 09-C-1009 (E.D. Wisc.
Nov. 2, 2009) (dismissing suit challenging rulings on motions filed in Chapter 980
proceeding and evidence used to have him committed). In his latest challenge, Thomas
sued the psychologist who evaluated him in anticipation of the Chapter 980 hearing.
Thomas sought damages, alleging that in his evaluation the psychologist falsified data and
relied on outdated criteria to assess his dangerousness. The district court dismissed the suit
before service, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), reasoning that Thomas’s claims are barred by
Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
On appeal, Thomas renews his contentions that the psychologist lied in his report.
But if this is true, the falsified report calls into question the validity of Thomas’s
commitment, which is based on that report. Thomas may not sue for damages under § 1983
unless and until his commitment has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87; see Huftile v.
Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005). At this point, Thomas’s remedy for
errors in the Chapter 980 proceeding lies in his habeas corpus proceeding.
AFFIRMED.