Jesse Schworck v. Dane County Circuit Judge Stephanie R. Hilton, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Wisconsin Supreme Court, and the State of Wisconsin

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Jesse Schworck’s pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint arising from state divorce proceedings. The court held that the claims were barred or deficient based on state and judicial immunity, lack of personal involvement, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the domestic-relations exception, and the absence of private rights of action under the cited criminal statutes. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and a motion for expedited review was denied as moot.

Holdings

1. The State of Wisconsin and its agencies, including the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Wisconsin Supreme Court, are not persons subject to suit under § 1983.
2. Official-capacity claims for damages against the state judges and Attorney General are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; individual-capacity claims against the judges are barred by judicial immunity; and the individual-capacity claim against Attorney General Kaul fails because Schworck alleged no personal involvement.
3. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the federal district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over Schworck's claims because he directly challenges and seeks to invalidate state-court judgments.
4. Even if Rooker-Feldman did not apply, the domestic-relations exception would deprive the federal court of jurisdiction over Schworck's challenge to the divorce proceeding.
5. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 do not provide a private right of action, and Schworck cannot obtain an order compelling the arrest or prosecution of another person.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State of Wisconsin and Wisconsin courts are persons subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
2. Whether claims against state judges and the Attorney General are barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity or judicial immunity, or fail for lack of personal involvement.
3. Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the federal district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims directly challenging state-court divorce judgments.
4. Whether the domestic-relations exception independently deprives the federal court of jurisdiction over the divorce-related dispute.
5. Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 provide a private right of action or authorize a private plaintiff to compel prosecution or arrest.

Disposition

dismissed