Karl C. Wright Iii v. Milwaukee County Jail

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted November 7, 2024 *
Decided November 13, 2024
Before
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2069
KARL C. WRIGHT III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY JAIL,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-0436-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Nearly eight years after he alleges he was assaulted by officials at the Milwaukee
County Jail, Karl Wright sued the jail for constitutional violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
* The appellee was not served with process and is not participating in this appeal.
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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. 24-2069 Page 2
The district found these claims untimely under the applicable six-year statute of
limitations and dismissed the complaint. We affirm the dismissal.
This is not the first time that Wright has tried to litigate a claim arising from an
alleged assault by officials at the Milwaukee County Jail on May 8, 2016. In 2017, he
sued two jail officials, Rafael Brito and James Ramsey-Guy, for sodomizing and using
excessive force against him, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Wright v.
Brito, No. 17-CV-64-PP, 2019 WL 1118143 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 11, 2019). Wright alleged that
another officer opened his cell, allowing entrance by Brito and Ramsey-Guy, who in
turn beat him with closed fists and sexually assaulted him. Id. at *1. The district court
entered summary judgment for Brito and Ramsey-Guy because there was no evidence
that they had assaulted Wright in May 2016 or at any other time. Id. at *5.
Wright brought this suit against the jail in April 2024. In this suit, he alleged that
the May 2016 assault was facilitated by a third official, Sergeant Wilbourne, then
working in the jail’s control room. Wright identifies Wilbourne as the official who
smoothed the way for the assault by electronically opening his cell door and then
repositioned the jail’s security camera away from his cell.
The district court screened Wright’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
and dismissed it because the claims were untimely. The court explained that under
Wisconsin’s then-applicable statute of limitations, see WIS . STAT . § 893.53 (2015), Wright
needed to sue within six years of the date when he knew or should have known that he
sustained an injury. 1 Having waited nearly eight years to sue, Wright was too late.
On appeal, Wright clarifies that he contends that the statute of limitations should
be tolled because he learned only recently that Wilbourne was the third official
responsible for opening his cell on May 8, 2016. But Wright may not relitigate the issue
of whether he was assaulted that day by Brito and Ramsey-Guy. Issue preclusion bars a
party from relitigating an issue of fact or law “actually litigated and resolved in a valid
court determination essential to the prior judgment.” Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892
(2008); see Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 225 (7th Cir. 2013). Although issue
preclusion is an affirmative defense, see FED. R. C IV. P. 8(c), we may raise it sua sponte,
as here, if its application is plainly apparent from the face of the complaint. See Arizona
1 The statute was amended in 2018 to provide a three-year limitations period,
see WIS . S TAT . § 893.53 (2018), but the older version of the statute applies to Wright’s
allegations, which addressed events in 2016. See Milchtein v. Milwaukee Cnty., 42 F.4th
814, 822 n.2 (7th Cir. 2022).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2069 Page 3
v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000); see also Studio Art Theatre of Evansville, Inc. v. City of
Evansville, 76 F.3d 128, 130 (7th Cir. 1996). Wright previously litigated this Fourteenth
Amendment claim, and a district court entered summary judgment for the officials
based on a lack of proof. Given that court’s conclusion, Wright is precluded from
relitigating issues relating to the assault.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --