Charles Williams v. Melinda Mannlein

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted February 22, 2016*
Decided February 22, 2016
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
No. 15-3239
CHARLES WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MELINDA MANNLEIN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Central District of Illinois.
No. 15-1123
James E. Shadid,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Charles Williams, a resident of Peoria, Illinois, complained to Animal Protection
Services, a county agency, after a neighbor’s dog chased him down the street. APS cited
the neighbor for keeping a “nuisance” animal, and an assistant state’s attorney was
assigned to prosecute the citation (a civil matter that the Illinois courts characterize as
“quasi-criminal,” see, e.g., City of Rockford v. Custer, 936 N.E.2d 773, 774–75 (Ill. App. Ct.
2010)). The neighbor was acquitted at a bench trial, but six months later the dog again
* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is
unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 --

No. 15-3239 Page 2
chased Williams, leading to another citation and prosecution. This time the neighbor
pleaded guilty and was fined.
Williams then filed this action. His amended complaint, which invokes 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d to 2000d-7, names
as defendants the assistant state’s attorney, the judge who presided over both
prosecutions, and the (now retired) director of APS. During the neighbor’s trial, he says,
the prosecutor and judge discriminated against him on the basis of race—the prosecutor
by not eliciting his testimony that the dog had run amok on other occasions, and the
judge by acquitting the neighbor. The amended complaint does not allege any
misconduct by the director of APS. The district court, in dismissing the lawsuit on the
defendants’ motion, reasoned that the judge had absolute immunity and that Williams
had not stated a claim as to the remaining defendants.
Williams appeals the dismissal only as to the prosecutor and the director of APS.
Yet there are no allegations in the complaint against the director of APS and no
allegations of discrimination by the prosecutor. Moreover, the prosecutor has absolute
immunity from liability arising from the performance of her prosecutorial duties (which
includes prosecution of civil violations). See Thomas v. City of Peoria, 580 F.3d 633, 638–39
(7th Cir. 2009); Smith v. Power, 346 F.3d 740, 742 (7th Cir. 2003); Mendenhall v. Goldsmith,
59 F.3d 685, 691 (7th Cir. 1995).
This appeal is frivolous. We order Williams to show cause within 14 days why the
court should not impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 for
filing a frivolous appeal. If Williams fails to pay any fine imposed as a sanction, he may
be barred from filing any other litigation in this circuit until he has done so. See Support
Sys. Int’l., Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --