Hooper, Shawn v. Chafer, Nicholas et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SHAWN ROBERT HOOPER,
Plaintiff,
v.
NICHOLAS CHAFER and WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DIVISION OF
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-670-jdp
Plaintiff Shawn Hooper, proceeding without counsel, asserts that his probation officer
prohibited him from contacting his wife, in violation of a judge’s order, and then revoked his
parole after Hooper violated the no-contact rule. Hooper has made an initial partial payment
of the filing fee as previously directed by the court.
The next step is for me to screen Hooper’s complaint and dismiss any portion that is
legally frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915 and 1915A. In doing so, I must accept his allegations as true and construe the
complaint generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011).
Hooper’s allegations are cursory. He says that the sentencing judge in his criminal case
“expressly ordered that [Hooper] could have contact with his wife.” Dkt. 1, at 2. Nevertheless,
probation officer Nicholas Chafer prohibited Hooper from contacting his wife and revoked his
probation after he violated the no-contact rule. Hooper was incarcerated for almost two years
after his probation was revoked. Hooper’s wife died while he was incarcerated.
Case: 3:25-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 5 Filed: 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Hooper’s 	claims 	are barred 	under 	Heck 	v. 	Humphrey. 	512 	U.S. 	477, 	486–87
(1994). Heck held that if a plaintiff “seeks damages in a § 1983 suit, the district court must
consider whether a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of
his conviction or sentence; if it would, the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” 512 U.S. at 487;
see also Courtney v. Butler, 66 F.4th 1043, 1050 (7th Cir. 2023). Heck applies to § 1983 claims
for 	damages 	based 	on 	the 	revocation 	of probation. Lynch 	v. 	Wis. 	Dep’t 	of 	Corr.,
No. 23-cv-801-wmc, 2024 WL 1636700, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 16, 2024); Henry v. Whiteaker,
No. 21-cv-137-bbc, 2021 WL 1667659, at *1 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 28, 2021).
Hooper says that Chafer unlawfully restricted Hooper’s contact with his wife, revoked
his probation in violation of a court order, and caused him to be wrongfully incarcerated for
two years. A judgment in Hooper’s favor on any of those counts would necessarily imply the
invalidity of Hooper’s revocation, which hasn’t been overturned.
When a plaintiff proceeds without counsel, the court of appeals has cautioned against
dismissing his case without giving him a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v. City of
Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). But leave to amend doesn’t have to be granted “if
it is clear that any amendment would be futile.” Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir.
2013). Heck bars the complaint, so further amendment would be futile. If Hooper’s conviction
is ultimately overturned, he could bring a new § 1983 case at that time.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED without leave to amend pursuant to
Heck.
Case: 3:25-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 5 Filed: 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
2. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Entered February 17, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00670-jdp Document #: 5 Filed: 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3