## Facts

- Ruben Pena (age 19) dated Amanda Mattox (age 15) in Illinois; she became pregnant in 1992.
- After Amanda’s parents learned of the pregnancy, they attempted to stop the relationship; Amanda continued seeing Pena.
- On December 8, 1992, Pena visited Amanda; afterward he could not reach her and unsuccessfully searched local hospitals.
- Without Pena’s knowledge, Amanda’s parents took her to Indiana, where she gave birth and the child was placed for adoption; Indiana law did not require the father’s consent when the mother was under 16 at conception.
- The following night, Amanda’s father, Edward Mattox, arranged a meeting with Pena; Pena was arrested based on a felony complaint signed by Mattox.
- The complaint alleged an Illinois felony requiring that the minor be at least five years younger than the defendant; Mattox and prosecutor Charles Bretz allegedly knew the age-difference element was false.
- Bail was set at $30,000; when Pena’s sister called the Mattox home, Judge Patricia Schneider (Amanda’s aunt) identified herself as a judge, told her not to call again, and said bail would be increased; bail increased by $10,000 at the next date.
- The charge was later reduced to misdemeanor sexual assault, and Pena pleaded guilty.
- Pena filed a federal suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the defendants conspired under color of state law to deprive him of parental rights and prevent him from asserting claims concerning the child and adoption.

## Issues

1. Whether a biological father has a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in a relationship with a child conceived through conduct that state law defines as criminal sexual conduct with a minor.
2. Whether alleged interference by state officials with filing or pursuing a state-law action states a federal constitutional claim.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The court held Pena lacked a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the child because the child resulted from Pena’s criminal sexual conduct with a minor under Illinois law.
- Because no protected liberty interest existed, the court did not reach whether interference with state-court litigation independently violates the federal Constitution.
- The court affirmed denial of reconsideration and leave to amend because amendment would be futile given the dispositive constitutional holding.

## Legal Principles

- A biological father’s due process interest in a relationship with a child is not automatic; it depends on the nature of the claimed interest and surrounding circumstances.
- The Fourteenth Amendment does not require recognition of a protected parental liberty interest where the claimed parent-child relationship is the product of conduct criminalized by the state as sexual activity with a minor.
- Without a protected liberty or property interest, alleged misconduct by state actors (including conspiratorial actions) does not state a viable § 1983 claim premised on deprivation of parental rights.
- Leave to amend may be denied when the defect is legal rather than factual and cannot be cured by repleading.

## Conclusion

The court rejected Pena’s § 1983 theory because, given his guilty plea and the criminal nature of the underlying sexual relationship under state law, he had no Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in establishing or maintaining a parental relationship with the child, rendering the alleged conspiracy and related procedural allegations insufficient to state a federal claim.


Pena v. Mattox, 84 F.3d 894 (7th Cir. 1996)