James French v. Alisha Lizer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 11, 2025*
Decided December 12, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1550
JAMES FRENCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ALISHA LIZER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Western Division.
No. 23-cv-50114
Iain D. Johnston,
Judge.
O R D E R
James French sued officials from the Village of Dakota, Illinois, for violating his
rights under the First Amendment. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. French alleged that the
Village’s mayor ordered a police officer to cite French for violating a municipal
ordinance that prohibited distributing handbills without a permit. The district court
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. FED. R. A PP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. A PP. P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1550 Page 2
judge entered summary judgment for the defendants, concluding that French’s claims
were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994), and in any event, the
officials were entitled to qualified immunity. French appeals, but we agree that Heck
bars his claims, so we affirm.
In June 2022, French, who is a resident of the Village of Dakota, went door-to-
door to his neighbors’ homes distributing literature that advocated for the boycott of
bars and liquor stores in the town, as the Village had previously prohibited the sale of
alcoholic beverages. Years earlier, French had been convicted of aggravated criminal
sexual abuse and is required to register as a sex offender. While French was going door-
to-door, some residents contacted the Village’s mayor, Alisha Lizer, expressing concern
that French may have been soliciting at houses where children were present.
Lizer contacted the Dakota Police Department and researched the Village’s
solicitation ordinance. Upon discovering that a Village ordinance that made it unlawful
to engage in any solicitation without first obtaining a permit, see DAKOTA VILL . ORD.,
ch. 2, § 3-2-6, Lizer ordered Officer Bradley Curtis to cite French for violating the
ordinance. After Curtis issued the citation, Lizer contacted the Village’s legal counsel.
French then appeared in the Circuit Court of Stephenson County and pleaded
guilty to violating the ordinance. He paid a $25.00 fine plus $100.00 in court costs.
French then sued Lizer, Curtis, and five members of the Village’s Board of
Trustees. He alleged that the defendants’ enforcement of the solicitation ordinance
against him violated his rights under the First Amendment. See Watchtower Bible & Tract
Soc. of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150, 153 (2002). French sought damages for
costs associated with his legal defense and for mental anguish. Four months after
French filed his complaint, the Village amended the solicitation ordinance to require
permits only for commercial solicitation. See D AKOTA VILL . ORD., ch. 2, § 3-2-6 (2023).
The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the district judge granted the
motion. First, the judge concluded that the trustees were not personally involved in the
drafting or enforcement of the solicitation ordinance, so they were not liable under
§ 1983. See Hernandez v. Lee, 128 F.4th 866, 871 (7th Cir. 2025). Second, the judge
concluded that because French’s conviction for violating the ordinance remained intact,
his claims were barred by Heck. Finally, the judge concluded that Lizer and Curtis were
entitled to qualified immunity.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1550 Page 3
French appeals. He argues that the Heck bar does not apply to a conviction for
violating a municipal ordinance and Lizer and Curtis are not entitled to qualified
immunity.
But we agree with the district judge that Heck bars French’s claims. Heck bars a
suit for damages under § 1983 if the basis for the suit would undermine a conviction or
sentence. 512 U.S. at 487. French was charged by complaint for a criminal violation,
appeared in the Circuit Court of Stephenson County, pleaded guilty to violating the
ordinance, and was assessed a fine and costs. He did not appeal the judgment against
him, and his conviction has not been overturned. His argument now that enforcement
of the municipal ordinance violated his constitutional rights would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction.
And while we have “reserved judgment on whether Heck applies to ‘an
administrative proceeding or a finding of a violation of a city ordinance,’” Kuhn v.
Goodlow, 678 F.3d 552, 555 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768,
773 (7th Cir. 2009)), French has not persuaded us that Heck should not apply here. We
have found no case holding that the Heck bar does not apply to a conviction for
violating a municipal ordinance. See Olivier v. City of Brandon, Miss., No. 22-60566, 2023
WL 5500223, at *6 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2023), cert. granted on other grounds, 145 S. Ct. 2871
(2025) (applying Heck to conviction for violating city ordinance); Swiecicki v. Delgado,
463 F.3d 489, 493–94 (6th Cir. 2006) (same). And Heck applies to some proceedings that
lack procedural safeguards common to the judicial process, like prison disciplinary
proceedings affecting the duration of confinement. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641,
648 (1997); Savory v. Cannon, 947 F.3d 409, 423–26 (7th Cir. 2020) (en banc); cf.
R ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF T ORTS § 680 (A M. LAW. INST . 1977) (liability for wrongful
initiation and continuation of non-ex parte civil administrative proceedings requires
favorable termination). Moreover, the fact that French is not and never was in custody
does not affect Heck’s application. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 490 n.10; Savory, 947 F.3d at 414–
22 (holding that Heck controls outcome regardless of availability of habeas relief).
French has filed a § 1983 action challenging the validity of his extant conviction, so his
claims are barred by Heck.
Because we conclude that Heck bars French’s claims for damages against Curtis
and Lizer, we do not address his argument on the merits that Curtis and Lizer are not
entitled to qualified immunity. Further, French does not contest on appeal the summary
judgment for the members of the Board of Trustees.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --