Jacobs, Chris v. Marathon Co. DA et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRIS JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1998 TRIAL JUDGE DOUGLAS T. FOX,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-166-jdp
CHRIS JACOBS,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARATHON CO. DA INVESTIGATOR
MATT TRILIGO,
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
26-cv-202-jdp
Plaintiff 	Chris 	Jacobs, 	proceeding 	without 	counsel, 	is 	incarcerated 	at 	Columbia
Correctional Institution. Jacobs brings two lawsuits connected to his 1998 criminal conviction.
In Case No. 26-cv-166-jdp, he sues the state-court judge from his criminal proceedings, seeking
an order forcing him to make a statement to the Wisconsin Supreme Court supporting a
petition for review that Jacobs filed in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In Case No. 26-cv-202-
jdp, he sues an investigator for the district attorney’s office, alleging that he failed to properly
investigate harassment by police and others in the run-up to his prosecution, and then assisted
in his prosecution.
Jacobs has not submitted the $405 filing fee for either of these cases, so I infer that he
seeks leave to proceed without full prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, also
known as “in forma pauperis” status.
Case: 3:26-cv-00202-jdp Document #: 2 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
But Jacobs has “struck out” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). That provision reads as follows:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a
judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section if the
prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or
detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of
the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.
On at least three prior occasions, Jacobs has brought actions or appeals that were
dismissed because they were frivolous or malicious or they failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. See Jacobs v. Gerber, 403 F. App’x 67, 70 (7th Cir. 2010) (discussing
Jacobs’s strikes). Therefore, he cannot proceed without prepayment of the entire filing fees for
either of these cases unless I conclude that his allegations show that he is in imminent danger
of serious physical injury.
To meet the imminent-danger requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner must
allege a physical injury that is imminent or occurring at the time the complaint is filed and
show that the threat or prison condition causing the physical injury is “real and proximate.”
Ciarpaglini v. Saini, 352 F.3d 328, 330 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Heimermann v. Litscher, 337 F.3d
781 (7th Cir. 2003); Lewis v. Sullivan, 279 F.3d 526, 529 (7th Cir. 2002)). Nothing in Jacobs’s
complaints meets the imminent-danger standard. Therefore he is barred from proceeding in
forma pauperis with these cases.
Even if Jacobs wasn’t barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, I would dismiss his
complaints for other reasons. The statute of limitations has long run on any type of claim that
Jacobs could bring about the judge or a district attorney’s investigator in his decades-old
prosecution. He can’t bring claims for which a judgment in his favor would imply the invalidity
of the state conviction. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994). And in any event with
Case: 3:26-cv-00202-jdp Document #: 2 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
regard to the ’166 case, judges have absolute immunity for the acts they take in their judicial
capacity. Polzin v. Gage, 636 F.3d 834, 838 (7th Cir. 2011). Nor can this court order the type
of relief that Jacobs seeks in that case, forcing a state court judge to submit a statement to
another court.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing an
unrepresented plaintiff’s case without giving them a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v.
City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). But dismissal of these lawsuits is appropriate
because there isn’t any reason to think that Jacobs could amend his complaints to state a claim
for relief.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	Plaintiff Chris Jacobs is DENIED leave to proceed in forma pauperis under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) in these cases.
2. 	Both cases are DISMISSED.
3. 	The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close these cases.
Entered March 27, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:26-cv-00202-jdp Document #: 2 Filed: 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3