Nathan Wohlrabe v. Charles Brown

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 20, 2026*
Decided January 23, 2026
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 25-1471
NATHAN WOHLRABE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES BROWN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 24-cv-1321-bhl
Brett H. Ludwig,
Judge.
O R D E R
Nathan Wohlrabe sued Officer Charles Brown, raising Fourth Amendment
claims stemming from his arrest for battery to a law-enforcement officer. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The district judge dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Wohlrabe’s claims are
* 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

No. 25-1471 Page 2
barred by Heck v. Humphry, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994), or otherwise foreclosed by the
evidence. We affirm.
In 2022 Wohlrabe’s wife brought him to the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in
Milwaukee seeking treatment for dizziness, shortness of breath, and fatigue. According
to Wohlrabe’s version of events, the medical team did not promptly treat him, so he
became frustrated, left his hospital bed, and ran to the hospital lobby “gasping for air,
confused, and in a delirium.”
Brown, a security officer at the medical center, was in the lobby. Wohlrabe says
he became afraid after seeing the officer, so he ran back toward the nurses’ station.
Brown followed. Wohlrabe says he saw Brown reach for his gun, so in self-defense, he
“leapt to [Brown’s] side and touched the back of his head.” Wohlrabe alleges that
Brown then gratuitously slammed him to the ground and arrested him without
probable cause.
The hospital’s security video squarely contradicts these allegations, clearly
showing that Wohlrabe violently attacked Brown without provocation. Accordingly,
Wohlrabe was charged with battery to a law-enforcement officer in violation of
§ 940.203(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes. He pleaded no contest, and the court adjudged
him guilty of the crime but found him not responsible because of mental illness.
See W IS . S TAT. §§ 971.15(1), 971.165 (discussing judgment of not guilty by reason of
mental disease or defect). The court committed Wohlrabe to a mental-health institution
for three years. See State v. Wohlrabe, No. 2022CF003428 (Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Ct.
Apr. 7, 2023).
Wohlrabe filed this lawsuit in 2024 alleging that Brown violated his rights under
the Fourth Amendment. He claimed that Brown arrested him without probable cause
and acted unreasonably in the lead-up to the arrest by reaching for his gun and
blocking his exit from the hospital.
Brown moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that Wohlrabe’s
claims are barred by Heck and conclusively refuted by the hospital’s security video,
which he submitted with the motion. The video shows Wohlrabe walking around the
hospital without a shirt or shoes, clearly disoriented and distressed. Medical staff try to
guide him back to his room, but Wohlrabe enters the lobby of the hospital and sees
Brown. Wohlrabe turns back toward the nurses’ station where staff continue to try to
guide him back to his room. Brown appears in the hallway by the nurses’ station and is
seen assisting the staff in trying to guide Wohlrabe to his room. Brown stands at a

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 25-1471 Page 3
distance from Wohlrabe with his arms outstretched, pointing down the hall. Within
seven seconds of Brown’s appearance, Wohlrabe charges Brown, tackles him to the
ground, and repeatedly punches him in the head. Medical staff rush in to pull Wohlrabe
off Brown. At no point does the video evidence show Brown reaching for his gun or
preventing Wohlrabe from leaving the hospital.
The district judge dismissed the false-arrest claim under Heck because any
finding that Wohlrabe was arrested without probable cause would necessarily
undermine his conviction for battery to Brown. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87. And
although the Heck bar would not block a claim that Brown otherwise acted
unreasonably, the judge held that Wohlrabe’s allegations were conclusively refuted by
the video evidence of the incident, which established that Brown acted reasonably. The
judge therefore converted that portion of Brown’s motion to dismiss into a motion for
summary judgment and granted it.
On appeal Wohlrabe maintains that he has stated a claim that he was arrested
without probable because he did not punch Brown and “had not committed a crime.”
But this argument fails to address the district court’s conclusion that the claim is barred
by Heck. Heck bars a suit for damages under § 1983 if the basis for the suit would
undermine a conviction or sentence. Id. at 487. To be sure, the state court found
Wohlrabe not guilty by reason of mental disease. But that determination does not
render Wohlrabe not guilty of the offense of battery to a law-enforcement officer.
See State v. Koput, 418 N.W.2d 804, 811–12 (Wis. 1988) (explaining two-stage
determination of guilt and mental disease and that a finding of mental disease “is an
affirmative defense to ‘responsibility’—it relieves the person of the sanctions for criminal
conduct. It does not relieve the person already found guilty in the first phase of the
factual finding of criminal conduct.”); State v. Lagrone, 878 N.W.2d 636, 644–47 (Wis.
2016) (same). Moreover, a conclusion in line with Wohlrabe’s argument that his arrest
was unsupported by probable cause because he did not hit Brown would necessarily
imply the invalidity of that conviction. See McCann v. Neilsen, 466 F.3d 619, 621 (7th Cir.
2006) (“[A] plaintiff’s claim is Heck-barred despite its theoretical compatibility with his
underlying conviction if specific factual allegations in the complaint are necessarily
inconsistent with the validity of the conviction … .”).
Next, Wohlrabe maintains that the district judge erred by concluding that Brown
acted reasonably in the moments before the arrest. He asserts that Brown blocked the
exit of the hospital and reached for his gun. To the extent that these allegations could
give rise to a valid claim under the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable seizure or

-- 3 of 4 --

No. 25-1471 Page 4
excessive use of force, the judge correctly concluded that the videos contradict them.
Because Wohlrabe’s allegations are plainly refuted by the security videos, there is no
material dispute of fact that Brown’s seizure of Wohlrabe was reasonable and that he
did not use excessive force. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007); Kailin v.
Village of Gurnee, 77 F.4th 476, 481 (7th Cir. 2023).
Finally, Wohlrabe argues that the videos do not accurately depict the events,
asserting that the depth perception is “off,” the timing is “too fast or too slow,” and the
videos are “skew[ed]” to “make it appear more aggressive.” But Wohlrabe does not
explain how these issues would change what is clear from the videos: Wohlrabe
violently attacked Brown without provocation. Moreover, Wohlrabe submitted several
responses to Brown’s motion to dismiss, including his own motion for summary
judgment, but he did not develop the record with any evidence supporting a challenge
to the videos’ authenticity.
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Wohlrabe filed a motion and
supporting declaration in December 2025 asking us to reverse the state-court judgment
and exonerate him. That motion is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --