Smith, Nathaniel v. Bias, Jennifer et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
NATHANIEL SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
JENNIFER BIAS, BRIDGET KRAUSE, and STATE
PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-92-jdp
Plaintiff Nathaniel Smith, proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendants, mostly
state public defenders, unlawfully disclosed his personally identifiable information. Smith
proceeds without prepaying the filing fee, so I must screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismiss any part of it that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a plausible
claim for relief, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. I must accept Smith’s
allegations as true and construe them generously, holding the complaint to a less stringent
standard than one a lawyer drafts. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). I will
dismiss the complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a plausible claim for relief,
and I will assess a strike against Smith under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
On October 28, 2025, Smith received a letter from defendants informing him that they
inadvertently released to a third party his personally identifiable information (including his
name, address, date of birth, and social security number). Defendants encouraged Smith to
take precautions and offered him complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft
protection for 12 months “to mitigate the effects of the data breach.” Dkt. 1 at 3.
Case: 3:26-cv-00092-jdp Document #: 6 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ANALYSIS
Smith indicates on the complaint form that he’s suing for a violation of federal law, but
he does not expressly identify any federal cause of action. I take Smith to bring a Fourteenth
Amendment 	due 	process 	claim 	based 	on 	the 	disclosure 	of 	his 	personally 	identifiable
information.
I will assume, solely to screen the complaint, that Smith has a basic due process right
to the privacy of his personally identifiable information. But that information’s disclosure
would have to be “intentional, or at least reckless, to come within the reach of the Due Process
Clause.” Cf. Allen v. Cooper, 589 U.S. 248, 261 (2020). “[S]imple error, negligence, or even
gross negligence is not enough” to violate due process. See Wells v. Caudill, 967 F.3d 598, 601
(7th Cir. 2020).
Smith alleges that defendants: (1) committed “negligence” by failing to maintain
reasonable safeguards to protect his personally identifiable information; (2) breached their
duties of confidentiality and of “trust and good faith”; and (3) and violated his “privacy
interest.” 	Dkt. 	1 	at 	3–5. 	These 	allegations 	do 	not 	plausibly 	suggest 	that 	defendants
intentionally or recklessly disclosed his personally identifiable information. I will not allow
Smith to proceed on his due process claim
CONCLUSION
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 “if it is clear that any amendment would be
futile,” I need not grant leave to amend. Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013).
Case: 3:26-cv-00092-jdp Document #: 6 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Amendment would be futile here because Smith’s allegations compel the conclusion that he
seeks relief under federal law based on conduct that, at most, amounts to negligence. This case
belongs in state court.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Nathaniel Smith’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED without leave to
amend for failure to state a plausible claim for relief.
2. 	A strike is to be recorded against Smith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
3. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.
Entered April 1, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00092-jdp Document #: 6 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 3 of 3