Summary
affirming dismissal under Heck of civil rights action brought by that person civilly committed as a sexually violent person under Wisconsin law
Summary of this case from Vandivere v. LynchOpinion
No. 10-1864.
The defendant was not served with process in district court and is not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant's brief and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the appellant's brief and the record. See FED R.APP. P. 34(a)(2)(B).
Decided June 17, 2010.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 10-C-171. William C. Griesbach, Judge.
Sylvester Thomas, Winnebago, WI, pro se.
Before RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge, ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
This is Sylvester Thomas's fourth lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging some aspect of his civil commitment as a sexually violent person. See WIS. STAT. § 980; Thomas v. Van Hollen, No. 10-C-50 (E.D.Wisc. Jan. 28, 2010) (dismissing suit challenging constitutionality of Wisconsin's system of involuntary commitment of sexually violent persons), aff'd, 371 Fed.Appx. 680 (7th Cir. 2010); Thomas v. Van Hollen, No. 10-C-46 (E.D.Wisc. Jan. 28, 2010) (same); Thomas v. McMahon, 09-C-1009, 2009 WL 3711556 (E.D.Wisc. Nov. 2, 2009) (dismissing suit challenging rulings on motions filed in Chapter 980 proceeding and evidence used to have him committed). In his latest challenge, Thomas sued the psychologist who evaluated him in anticipation of the Chapter 980 hearing. Thomas sought damages, alleging that in his evalu* After examining the briefs and the record, we ation the psychologist falsified data and relied on outdated criteria to assess his dangerousness. The district court dismissed the suit before service, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(ii), reasoning that Thomas's claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
On appeal, Thomas renews his contentions that the psychologist lied in his report. But if this is true, the falsified report calls into question the validity of Thomas's commitment, which is based on that report. Thomas may not sue for damages under § 1983 unless and until his commitment has been invalidated. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364; see Huflile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005). At this point, Thomas's remedy for errors in the Chapter 980 proceeding lies in his habeas corpus proceeding.
AFFIRMED.