DAVID E. JACKSON, III, and NICKOLE A. JACKSON v. RICHARD ZORMIER and ROBERT BRAZIL

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 7, 2025*
Decided November 10, 2025
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2762
DAVID E. JACKSON, III, and
NICKOLE A. JACKSON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
RICHARD ZORMIER and ROBERT
BRAZIL,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.
No. 2:20-CV-45-TLS-APR
Theresa L. Springmann,
Judge.
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 5 --

No. 24-2762 Page 2
O R D E R
David Jackson and his wife Nickole brought this lawsuit alleging constitutional
violations arising out of his arrest and criminal convictions. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
district court dismissed the Jacksons’ complaint for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
We recite the facts as alleged in the Jacksons’ complaint, drawing all reasonable
inferences in their favor. Hess v. Garcia, 72 F.4th 753, 756–57 (7th Cir. 2023). In 2018,
police officers—based on a tip that Mr. Jackson was engaging in sexual misconduct
with a minor—went to the Jacksons’ home with an arrest warrant for him. They entered
the home and “destroyed portions” of it. The officers detained Mrs. Jackson and
“forcefully prevented” her from contacting anyone by phone. They asked her about Mr.
Jackson’s whereabouts, and she told them he was at work, where he was then arrested.
Mr. Jackson was interrogated by Detective Robert Brazil. Brazil declined to
investigate Mr. Jackson’s alternative explanations. Mr. Jackson maintained his
innocence and described being told by the minor that she had been molested by a
cousin and not him. During the interrogation, Mr. Jackson was deprived of food and
water. And while in custody, he was forced to sleep on bare concrete. The police hurled
racial epithets at Mr. Jackson and made him “relive abuses he suffered as a child.” The
police department posted on Facebook that Mr. Jackson had opened a board game
business “to attract children and have sex with the children.”
Soon after his release from custody, Mr. Jackson was again arrested based on
accusations of sex crimes, this time from two other individuals. Mr. Jackson asserts that
a proper police investigation would have exculpated him. Later, after he had been
brought to the jail, guards ignored assaults against him, denied him medical care for
severe pain, and placed him in solitary confinement. In the months that followed,
evidence of Mr. Jackson’s innocence was concealed by Brazil and Richard Zormier, the
police chief of Hobart, Indiana.
In February 2020, the Jacksons sued Brazil and Zormier for constitutional
violations arising out of Mr. Jackson’s arrest; Mrs. Jackson’s detention; Brazil’s
interrogation and investigations; the police department’s failure to train officers in
proper investigative techniques; Brazil and Zormier’s concealment of material evidence;
and the police officers’ use of racial epithets. The Jacksons also sued Brazil and Zormier
for violations of state law.

-- 2 of 5 --

No. 24-2762 Page 3
After Brazil and Zormier did not timely respond to the complaint, the Clerk of
Court for the Northern District of Indiana entered default for the Jacksons. But a month
later, the district court set aside the entry of default, determining that Brazil and
Zormier had shown good cause for their delayed response—the deadline had been
overlooked amid personnel turnover in Hobart’s law department and restructuring of
its case-management system.
A few weeks later, over the Jacksons’ objection, the court granted Brazil and
Zormier’s motion to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of Mr. Jackson’s
criminal cases.
In February 2021, Mr. Jackson pleaded guilty in three separate cases to charges of
sexual misconduct with a minor. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, which
was later revoked. At the defendants’ request, the district court lifted the stay in 2024,
finding that the claims in this case did not relate to Mr. Jackson’s only remaining
appeal, which challenged plea-agreement terms concerning his sentence. The court later
denied the Jacksons’ motion to reimpose the stay, reiterating that the claims here did
not bear on the remaining appeal.
The district court granted leave for the Jacksons to amend their complaint to add
more defendants. Their proposed amended complaint, however, added over fifty new
defendants and other unrelated claims, so the district court rejected it.
The district court also denied the Jacksons’ repeated motions for appointment of
counsel, concluding that the case was not overly complex and that the Jacksons were
competent to litigate their claims.
The court ultimately granted Brazil and Zormier’s motion to dismiss the case for
failure to state a claim. The court determined that the Jacksons’ wrongful-arrest and
concealment-of-evidence claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486–87
(1994), because they would imply the invalidity of Mr. Jackson’s convictions. Regarding
Detective Brazil, the court concluded that the Jacksons’ allegations against him were too
unclear to state a claim. As for Mrs. Jackson’s detention during the execution of the
arrest warrant for Mr. Jackson, the court determined that the complaint did not
adequately allege that the detention was unreasonable. Based on this determination, the
court declined to weigh in on a question that had divided the circuits: whether the
categorical exception in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 705 (1981)—permitting a
bystander not suspected of wrongdoing to be detained during the execution of a search
warrant—extends to the execution of an arrest warrant. The court added that the

-- 3 of 5 --

No. 24-2762 Page 4
complaint was too vague to allege plausible claims of municipal liability, racial
discrimination, excessive force, or failure to consider medical and dietary needs. The
court then relinquished supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and
dismissed them without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
On appeal, the Jacksons first challenge the district court’s dismissal of their
Fourth Amendment claim, arguing that Summers does not permit officers to detain a
bystander on the premises while they execute an arrest warrant. But this appeal does
not require us to weigh in on the question of Summers’ extension to the arrest-warrant
context, compare United States v. Mastin, 972 F.3d 1230, 1238 (11th Cir. 2020)
(categorically extending Summers); Cherrington v. Skeeter, 344 F.3d 631, 638 (6th Cir.
2003) (same); Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 2007) (same); with Sharp v.
County of Orange, 871 F.3d 901, 912–15 (9th Cir. 2017) (declining to categorically extend
Summers but noting that bystander detentions will surely be reasonable in some
circumstances), because the complaint does not state a claim that the de minimis
detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. See Samson v. California,
547 U.S. 843, 855 n.4 (2006); Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 331 (1990). As the district
court noted, the Jacksons’ threadbare recital of Mrs. Jackson’s detention was insufficient
to state such a claim.
Next, the Jacksons argue that the district court erred in setting aside the entry of
default against the defendants because doing so prejudiced their ability to seek redress.
But given our preference for determinations on the merits over default judgments,
see Escamilla v. United States, 62 F.4th 367, 372 (7th Cir. 2023), the district court
appropriately exercised its discretion in determining that the city (1) had good cause for
the error based on the restructuring in its legal office and (2) took prompt steps to
correct the mistake, entering appearances and filing the motion to set aside the entry of
default less than two weeks after it was entered.
The Jacksons also challenge the district court’s grant of a stay, arguing that the
stay caused them “manifest injustice” by delaying the resolution of their claims and
impeding their ability to procure evidence and witnesses. But the district court
appropriately exercised its discretion when it evaluated the competing interests,
determined that much of the civil suit stemmed from the ongoing criminal prosecution,
and concluded that a stay would not prejudice the Jacksons. See United States v. Kordel,
397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27 (1970).
Next, the Jacksons challenge the denial of their requests for counsel and argue
that their case was too complex for them to litigate because of their mental and physical

-- 4 of 5 --

No. 24-2762 Page 5
health conditions. But the court reasonably determined that the Jacksons were capable
of presenting the legal issues here, having filed many motions that contained well-
organized arguments with appropriate legal citations. See Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647,
654–55 (7th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
The Jacksons also challenge the denial of their motion to amend the complaint
and urge that the court simply should have severed the unrelated claims. But the
Jacksons’ proposed amended complaint sought to add over 50 new defendants and
replace their allegations with unrelated ones that extended over seven years and mostly
concerned the revocation of Mr. Jackson’s probation. District judges should reject
complaints attempting to bring unrelated claims against different defendants.
See, e.g., Owens v. Evans, 878 F.3d 559, 566 (7th Cir. 2017). Further, the proposed
amended complaint would have vastly altered the case’s scope, causing substantial
delay and prejudice to the defendants, who had filed a motion to dismiss. See Airborne
Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir. 2007); Zimmerman
v. Bornick, 25 F.4th 491, 494 (7th Cir. 2022).
We have reviewed the Jacksons’ challenge to the dismissal of their other claims
(race discrimination, municipal liability, failure to disclose exculpatory evidence,
excessive force, denial of medical care, cruel and unusual punishment), but those
arguments on appeal are underdeveloped and do not merit further discussion.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --