Cowins, Courtney v. Sundstrom, Jeanette et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
COURTNEY M. COWINS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEANETTE SUNDSTROM and
JUDGE CHRIS TAYLOR,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
25-cv-532-wmc
Plaintiff Courtney Cowins, a state prisoner who represents himself, has filed a
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that his constitutional rights were violated by
a state court judge and court reporter who conspired to reconstruct a missing court reporter
certification from his criminal trial. Because plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding without
prepayment of the full filing fee, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss any
portion that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks money damages from an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). The court must accept the complaint’s allegations as true and
construe them generously, holding the complaint to a less stringent standard than one
drafted by a lawyer. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). However,
plaintiff must still provide facts sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Here, plaintiff’s complaint
must be dismissed because it fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.
This is not the first time plaintiff has raised the issue of the uncertified record for
his state criminal case. After this court denied a habeas petition he filed under 28 U.S.C.
Case: 3:25-cv-00532-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
§ 2254, plaintiff argued that this court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition
because of an uncertified court record. Judge James Peterson dismissed the argument as
frivolous. Cowins v. Boughton, 16-cv-22-jdp, dkt. #59 (W.D. Wis. April 15, 2020). Plaintiff
then raised the same issue in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on denial of another
postconviction motion, but the appellate court likewise rejected the argument as lacking
any legal basis. State v. Cowins, 2023AP197 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 5, 2024).
Now plaintiff tries a new tactic, characterizing the uncertified record and state
judge’s and court reporter’s attempt to correct the problem as a violation of his due process
and equal protection rights. But this argument is also meritless. State court rules about
trial transcripts and court reporter certification do not implicate plaintiff’s rights to due
process or equal protection. Moreover, judges are immune from actions taken in their
official capacities, Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660–61 (7th Cir. 2005), and the court
reporter may have quasi-judicial immitted if she was acting at the direction of a judge. See
Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 436–38 (1993); Schneider v. Cnty. of Will,
366 F. App’x 683, 685 (7th Cir. 2010). Thus, even if there was legal authority to support
plaintiff’s due process and equal protection theories, his claims would likely be barred by
immunity doctrines. For these reasons, plaintiff’s complaint will be dismissed.
When a plaintiff is proceeding 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 the court need not grant leave to
amend “if it is clear that any amendment would be futile.” Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d
603, 608 (7th Cir. 2013). Here, plaintiff cannot provide any more information that would
Case: 3:25-cv-00532-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
support a constitutional claim based on the alleged uncertified trial record, so another
chance to amend his complaint would be pointless. Thus, the case will be dismissed, and
the clerk of court will record a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because the dismissal is
for failure to state a claim. If plaintiff receives three strikes, he will not be allowed to file
cases in federal court without prepaying the full filing fee unless he is in imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1) Plaintiff Courtney Cowins is DENIED leave to proceed, and his complaint (dkt.
#1) is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
2) Plaintiff’s motion to correct the caption (dkt. #6) is GRANTED.
3) A strike is to be recorded under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
4) The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Entered the 1st day of April, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00532-wmc Document #: 8 Filed: 04/01/26 Page 3 of 3