Nathan John Huiras v. Racine County

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 2, 2025*
Decided September 4, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1263
NATHAN JOHN HUIRAS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RACINE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 25-C-85
William C. Griesbach,
Judge.
O R D E R
Nathan John Huiras alleges that several state officials violated his constitutional
rights by initiating criminal charges against him in state court. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-1263 Page 2
district court dismissed his complaint at screening for failure to state a claim.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We affirm.
Huiras brings this federal lawsuit alleging that he was maliciously prosecuted in
state court. According to Huiras’s complaint and attached exhibits, this case stems from
a proceeding in Wisconsin’s family court in which Andrew Patch, a “family court
worker,” gave testimony that Huiras considered unfavorable. Huiras initiated a
small-claims lawsuit against Patch and told him that he would drop the suit if Patch
changed his testimony. Patch reported Huiras’s actions to Steven Beal, a police officer
for the Racine Police Department. Beal filed an incident report stating that Huiras tried
to intimidate Patch by filing a frivolous suit against him.
Shortly thereafter, an assistant district attorney in Racine, Kelly Larsen, filed
criminal charges against Huiras for threatening Patch. Alice Rudebusch, the judicial
court commissioner in Racine County Circuit Court who presided over the case, found
probable cause that Huiras committed the crime. But after Patch refused to cooperate
with the prosecution, Racine’s district attorney, Dirk Jensen, had the case dismissed.
Huiras sued Patch, Beal, Larsen, Jensen, Rudebusch, and Racine County for
violations of his constitutional rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He asserted a claim for
malicious prosecution under the Fourth Amendment and a claim of retaliation under
the First Amendment (based on the criminal charges against him for filing the
small-claims suit), as well as myriad state-law claims, including state-law malicious
prosecution, defamation, negligent infliction of emotional distress, legal malpractice,
negligence, and fraud.
The district court dismissed Huiras’s complaint at screening. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The court determined that Larsen and Jensen were immune for their
prosecutorial actions and that Rudebusch was immune for her judicial actions. Next, the
court ruled that Huiras failed to state a claim against Patch under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
because Huiras did not allege that Patch—whose actions were functionally equivalent
to those of a private citizen—conspired with a state actor to deprive Huiras of his
constitutional rights. The court also concluded that Huiras did not state a claim against
Beal because Huiras did not allege that Beal induced the prosecutors to bring charges
that they otherwise would not have initiated. Finally, the court explained, Huiras did
not allege an underlying constitutional violation, so Racine County could not be liable
under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-1263 Page 3
On appeal, Huiras first argues that Larsen and Jensen are not immune from
liability because they acted outside the scope of their prosecutorial duties when they
charged him for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct. But prosecutors like
Larsen and Jensen are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their core
prosecutorial actions, Bianchi v. McQueen, 818 F.3d 309, 316 (7th Cir. 2016), such as
initiating a prosecution, Lewis v. Mills, 677 F.3d 324, 330 (7th Cir. 2012).
Huiras next maintains that Rudebusch should not be protected by judicial
immunity because she was acting in her role as a court commissioner, not a judge, when
she found that probable cause supported the charge against him. But absolute
immunity “attach[es] primarily to judicial functions—not to the person or position,”
Brunson v. Murray, 843 F.3d 698, 710 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S.
193, 201 (1985)), and Rudebusch’s probable-cause assessment was a judicial function.
Huiras also challenges the district court’s conclusion that he did not state a claim
against Patch. He asserts that Patch conspired with Beal to maliciously prosecute him.
Significantly, however, he does not challenge the court’s determination that Patch acted
functionally as a private citizen when he informed Beal about Huiras’s small-claims
suit. A private citizen can act under color of state law if there is evidence of a concerted
effort between that individual and a state actor. Cooney v. Rossiter, 583 F.3d 967, 970
(7th Cir. 2009). But “the mere act of furnishing information to law enforcement officers
does not constitute joint activity,” Spiegel v. McClintic, 916 F.3d 611, 617 (7th Cir. 2019)
(quotation omitted), and Huiras did not allege that Patch further coordinated with Beal
beyond reporting Huiras’s threat.
Huiras reiterates that Beal maliciously prosecuted him. But a claim of malicious
prosecution cannot lie against Beal because Huiras did not allege that the proceedings
against him were commenced without probable cause. See Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S.
36, 44 (2022).
Finally, Huiras maintains that Racine County’s policies facilitate retaliation
against people who, like him, exercise their First Amendment rights to challenge county
employees. But the county cannot be liable under Monell when there is no underlying
constitutional deprivation. See Gonzalez v. McHenry Cnty., 40 F.4th 824, 829–30 (7th Cir.
2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --