Cordell L. Gines v. ELLEN JENKINS CURRY and JOE CERVANTEZ

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 12, 2025*
Decided August 12, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
JOSHUA P. KOLAR, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1194
CORDELL L. GINES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELLEN JENKINS CURRY and JOE
CERVANTEZ,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.
No. 24-cv-02418-SPM
Stephen P. McGlynn,
Judge.
O R D E R
Cordell Gines, an Illinois prisoner, sued his public defender and a state
prosecutor, seeking money damages for their alleged violations of his constitutional
* 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. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 2 --

No. 25-1194 Page 2
rights. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court screened the complaint and dismissed it.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). We affirm.
Gines sued the former Jackson County State’s Attorney, Joe Cervantez, and Ellen
Curry, a public defender who had represented Gines in a state criminal matter. Gines
alleged that in July 2022, after the Illinois Appellate Court had remanded his criminal
case for resentencing, Cervantez unlawfully modified the charges against him. Gines
asserts that the modification allowed the state to pursue a longer sentence. Gines said
he told Curry to contest the change, but Curry declined to do so.
The district court screened and dismissed the complaint. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). First, the court explained that Cervantez is immune from liability for
damages under § 1983 for prosecutorial activities, like charging decisions. Second,
Gines failed to state a claim against Curry because a public defender performing
traditional lawyer functions is not a state actor subject to suit under § 1983. The court
denied Gines leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
Gines appeals, arguing that Cervantez should not be protected by absolute
prosecutorial immunity for modifying the criminal charges against him. But a
prosecutor is immune from liability for money damages under § 1983 for actions
“within the scope of his prosecutorial duties” that are “intimately associated with the
judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420, 430 (1976).
And charging decisions are a “quintessentially prosecutorial function[],” undertaken as
part of judicial proceedings. Bianchi v. McQueen, 818 F.3d 309, 318 (7th Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, Cervantez is immune from liability for money damages based on any
decision to modify the criminal charges against Gines.
To the extent Gines challenges the dismissal of his claim against Curry, we see no
error. While representing Gines in the criminal matter, Curry declined to pursue a line
of argument pressed by Gines. Curry did not act under color of state law when she
exercised this independent professional judgment during her representation of Gines.
See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --