Shaun P. Duerr, individually and as next friend of N.D., a minor v. Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation, Deputy Director Francis Sullivan and Intake Coordinator Emma Babler

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed Shaun Duerr’s claims against the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation and two officials arising from the dismissal of his complaints against a guardian ad litem. The court held that the allegations failed to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, or the Rehabilitation Act, and that the requested relief raised federalism and comity concerns warranting abstention. The court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend and directed the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not state a procedural due process claim because Duerr had no federally protected liberty or property interest in OLR's discretionary handling or review of his administrative complaints.
2. The complaint did not state a First Amendment or related access-to-forum claim because Duerr was able to submit a grievance to OLR and received instructions for seeking review; the government was not required to grant or adopt his petition.
3. The complaint did not state a claim under Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act because it did not allege that OLR or the individual defendants excluded Duerr from, or denied him benefits of, a public service, program, or activity because of a disability.
4. Abstention was warranted because Duerr sought federal relief that could be used affirmatively or offensively to shape or change the direction of the related state divorce and custody proceedings.
5. Leave to amend was properly denied because the court had no basis to infer that amendment could save the complaint from dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint stated a procedural due process claim based on OLR's handling and dismissal of Duerr's administrative complaints.
2. Whether OLR's handling of the complaints violated Duerr's First Amendment right to petition or his alleged right of access to a functioning state forum.
3. Whether the complaint stated claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act.
4. Whether abstention was required because the requested federal relief would undermine or interfere with ongoing state divorce and custody proceedings.
5. Whether Duerr should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed