Philip Padilla v. Jamie Kuhn

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 7, 2025*
Decided January 8, 2025
Before
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2654
PHILIP PADILLA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMIE KUHN, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 24-CV-821-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Philip Padilla appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights suit challenging the
constitutionality of his prior state criminal arrest and conviction. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The district court dismissed Padilla’s complaint as time-barred. We affirm.
* The appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. We have
agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the brief 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2654 Page 2
Padilla was arrested in Oconto County, Wisconsin, in August 2017. He pleaded
no contest in Wisconsin state court to enticing a child to engage in sexual contact,
see WIS . S TAT. § 948.07(1) (2017), and was sentenced in March 2018 to 15 months’
imprisonment and three years’ extended supervision.
In July 2024, Padilla filed this lawsuit, alleging that the arresting officer
entrapped him, used excessive force while arresting him, and later—during pretrial
detention—placed him in a frigid, isolated cell; and that his defense lawyer rendered
ineffective assistance. The district court screened Padilla’s complaint, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), dismissed any claims that implied the invalidity of his criminal conviction
under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and dismissed the remaining claims as
lacking detail. The court also apprised Padilla that his claims might be barred by the
applicable statute of limitations and that any attempt to amend his complaint must
address such timing issues.
Padilla amended his complaint to add additional police officer defendants and
remove other defendants. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It found
that Padilla’s claims against the officers were time-barred because the Wisconsin statute
of limitations—which in August 2017 was six years,1 W IS . S TAT. § 893.53 (2016)—passed
before Padilla filed his complaint. The court also ruled that Padilla could not sue his
former defense attorney under § 1983 because public defenders performing traditional
lawyers’ functions are not state actors, and a § 1983 suit was not a proper vehicle to
challenge the validity of his conviction.
Padilla’s appellate brief rehashes his allegations and hardly engages the district
court’s rationale (as required under F ED. R. APP . P. 28(a)(8); Anderson v. Hardman,
241 F.3d 544, 545–56 (7th Cir. 2001)), but we understand him generally to argue for the
first time that restrictions on his internet access prevented him from filing his complaint
sooner. However, we may not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, Henry
v. Hulett, 969 F.3d 769, 785 (7th Cir. 2020), and Padilla failed to mention any
impediments when invited by the district court to file an amended complaint that
addressed statute-of-limitations concerns.
To the extent Padilla challenges the dismissal of his ineffective-assistance claim
against his defense attorney, that claim was properly dismissed because public
1 The Wisconsin statute of limitations was shortened in April 2018 to three years. See Cielak v.
Nicolet Union High Sch. Dist., 112 F.4th 472, 477 (7th Cir. 2024).

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2654 Page 3
defenders do not act under color of state law when performing the traditional functions
of counsel. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --