Benedict Nichols v. State of Wisconsin

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 7, 2016 *
Decided January 7, 2016
Before
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
Nos. 15‐3029 & 15‐3030
BENEDICT NICHOLS,
Plaintiff‐Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN,
Defendant‐Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Nos. 15‐CV‐1069 & 15‐CV‐1070
William E. Duffin,
Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Benedict Nichols appeals from the dismissal of his civil complaints for failure to
state a claim. We dismiss the appeal.
Nichols filed two civil‐rights complaints against the State of Wisconsin
challenging his past state convictions. In the first complaint, he alleged that he found
several problems with his 1994 misdemeanor convictions for sexual assault and lewd
* The defendant was not served with process in the district court and is not
participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we
have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. A PP. P.
34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

Nos. 15‐3029 & 15‐3030 Page 2
and lascivious behavior, including that there was “NO Citation and or ticket; NO
Arresting officer do to the complaint being a week late or a week prior; the case number
is not a case number at all; there is no year or charge.” In his second complaint, he
challenged his 1997 conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence, alleging
that the citation he received misidentified the color of his car as grey, rather than brown.
In both complaints Nichols accused various state officials of wrongdoing, including
failing to acquit him of the offense, not knowing the case number, and failing to arrest
others. In both complaints Nichols requests the same relief: “Acquit me of this Judgment
so I can sue[.] Wisconsin need’s its Justice Back! You can’t keep the Felon’s in all are legal
offices; on the bench and with a badge.”
The district court granted Nichols’s leave to proceed in forma pauperis and then
dismissed the complaints at screening for failure to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court reasoned that Nichols may not challenge his convictions
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they have not been reversed or otherwise called into
question. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). And even if his convictions
had been reversed, the court continued, the six‐year statute of limitations for
constitutional claims has long expired, see WIS . STAT . § 893.53; Gray v. Lacke, 885 F.2d 399,
409 (7th Cir. 1989), and any claim for damages against the State of Wisconsin would be
barred by the Eleventh Amendment, see Thomas v. State of Illinois, 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th
Cir. 2012). Nor may Nichols seek relief through a petition for habeas corpus because he
no longer is in custody. Concluding that the defects in Nichols’s complaints could not be
cured, the court dismissed the complaints in their entirety.
Nichols, proceeding pro se, raises no discernable argument on appeal. His
two‐paragraph brief merely restates some of the allegations in his complaints,
supplemented by police reports and court documents related to his prior convictions.
But his brief does not address the district court’s decision to dismiss his complaints or
any of the district court’s reasons for doing so. Although we construe pro se briefs
generously, an appellate brief still must contain a cogent argument and reasons
supporting it, with citations to relevant authority and parts of the record on which the
appellant relies. See FED. R. A PP. P. 28(a)(8); Ball v. City of Indianapolis, 760 F.3d 636, 645
(7th Cir. 2014); Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545–46 (7th Cir. 2001). Because Nichols
has presented no arguments as to why his claims should not be dismissed, we are left
with nothing to review.
DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --