Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do

── Marwan Mahajni v. Vu Do ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-3175 MARWAN MAHAJNI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VU DO and SCOTT WOIDA, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 2:24-cv-00416 — Pamela Pepper, Chief Judge. ____________________ ARGUED NOVEMBER 5, 2025 — DECIDED APRIL 13, 2026 ____________________ Before RIPPLE, KIRSCH, and LEE, Circuit Judges. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Marwan Mahajni brought this sec- tion 1983 action against two deputies in the Wisconsin state court system. Deputy Vu Do and Deputy Scott Woida super- vised the jury during deliberations in a state criminal case where he was the defendant. In his complaint, Mr. Mahajni claimed that the deputies violated his constitutional rights by telling the jury during deliberations that it had to reach a unanimous verdict and that a hung jury was not a permissible 2 No. 24-3175 outcome of its deliberations. He further alleged that this epi- sode resulted in his wrongful conviction. 1 The deputies filed an answer asserting qualified immunity as an affirmative defense. They then filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. In an oral ruling, the district court denied qualified immunity to Deputy Do, who had made the statement to the jury. In the same ruling, the district court also denied without prejudice qualified immunity to Dep- uty Woida and invited him to submit further arguments at summary judgment. Unlike Deputy Do, Deputy Woida had not spoken to the jury. According to the complaint, he had violated Mr. Mahajni’s rights by failing to stop his colleague’s advice to the jury and by failing to report the incident to the presiding judge. Following the district court’s oral ruling, Deputy Woida filed this appeal challenging the denial of qualified immunity. We now hold that the district court’s action did not constitute a final adjudication of the qualified immunity issue as it re- lated to Deputy Woida. An appeal under the collateral order doctrine is therefore not currently available to him and we dismiss this appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. 1 Mr. Mahajni’s conviction was reversed by the state courts because of the deputies’ unauthorized intervention into the jury’s deliberations. State prosecutorial authorities declined further prosecution. No. 24-3175 3 I BACKGROUND A. Facts 2 In August 2013, Wisconsin prosecutorial authorities charged Mr. Mahajni with one count of kidnapping and four counts of second-degree sexual assault. At trial, the state court instructed the jury that “before the jury may return a verdict which may legally be received, that verdict must be reached unanimously as to each count. In a criminal case all 12 jurors must agree in order to arrive at a verdict on each count.” 3 The court also instructed the jury: If you need to communicate with the Court while you’re deliberating, send a note through the bailiff signed by the presiding juror. To have a complete record of this trial, it’s important that you communicate with the court only by writ- ten note. If you have questions, the court will talk with the lawyers before answering, so it may take some time before I can get you an answer. You should continue your deliberations while you wait for an answer. The court will answer any questions in writing or orally