Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Kou Lee filed a complaint against Dobberstein Law Firm LLC and other defendants related to a prior small claims case where he was a defendant. Lee alleged due process violations, Wisconsin open records law violations, and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violations, seeking $2.5 million in damages. The court granted the request to proceed in district court without prepaying the filing fee but dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims were inextricably intertwined with a state court decision.
Issues
- The court must determine whether Wisconsin's open records laws impose obligations on non-governmental actors like the Dobberstein Law Firm and Meghan MacKelly. Wisconsin Statute § 19.31 does not impose such obligations on private entities, and the laws do not provide for a private cause of action for damages except in conjunction with a petition for a writ of mandamus in Wisconsin circuit court.
- The court must evaluate whether Wis. Stat. § 801.11 authorizes a claim for damages. This statute sets forth a procedural rule but does not authorize a claim for damages, making Lee's allegation legally insufficient.
- The court must determine whether the plaintiff's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because they are inextricably intertwined with a state court decision, which would require the federal court to overturn the state court judgment. A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to overturn a state court judgment, and Lee's claims require success that would depend on reversing the state court's decision in BCG Equities, LLC vs. Lee, Case No. 2020SC002023.
- The court must assess whether the plaintiff alleges a plausible violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Lee simply names the statute and identifies 'FDCPA Violations' as Count IV without any factual support or effort to articulate which provision of the FDCPA any defendant allegedly violated.
- The court must assess whether the plaintiff has a plausible claim against judicial officers Judge Keberlein and Commissioner Heywood. Under Brokaw v. Mercer Cty., 235 F.3d 1000, 1015 (7th Cir. 2000), judicial officers are entitled to absolute immunity from suits for damages even if the action was in error, done maliciously, or in excess of authority.
Holdings
The court grants the plaintiff's Request to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying the Filing Fee. However, the court dismisses the plaintiff's complaint and this action for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the claims are inextricably intertwined with a state court decision and a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to overturn a state court judgment.
Remedies
The court granted the plaintiff's request to proceed in district court without prepaying the filing fee. The court determined the plaintiff lacked financial resources to prepay the fees and costs associated with this action.
Legal Principles
- Wisconsin's open records laws do not impose obligations on non-governmental actors such as private law firms. Additionally, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims lack factual support or articulation of which provision was allegedly violated.
- Judicial officers including judges and commissioners are entitled to absolute immunity from suits for damages, even if actions were done maliciously, in excess of authority, or involved grave procedural errors. This precludes claims against Judge Keberlein and Commissioner Heywood.
- The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from overturning state court judgments. The court found Lee's claims are inextricably intertwined with a state court decision, requiring overturning of that decision for federal court success. Therefore, the claims are barred and the action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Precedent Name
- Wis. Carry, Inc. v. City of Milwaukee
- Epps v. Creditnet, Inc.
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman
- Kuether v. Posley
- Brokaw v. Mercer Cty.
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
Cited Statute
- United States Code governing in forma pauperis proceedings
- Wisconsin Statutes Section 801.11
- Wisconsin Open Records Law
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 Section 1983
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Judge Name
- Byron B. Conway
- Bryan D. Keberlein
- Eric R. Heywood
Passage Text
- Having reviewed the plaintiff's request, the court concludes that the plaintiff lacks the financial resources to prepay the fees and costs associated with this action. Therefore, the plaintiff's Request to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying the Filing Fee will be granted.
- But the critical issue with Lee's complaint, which precludes this court from granting any relief, is that his claims are 'inextricably intertwined' with a state court decision, such that success in the federal court would require overturning the state court decision. Epps v. Creditnet, Inc., 320 F.3d 756, 759 (7th Cir. 2003). Consequently, Lee's claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to overturn a state court judgment. Because it is clear from Lee's complaint that the court lacks jurisdiction to consider his claims, his complaint and this action must be dismissed.
- IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's Request to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying the Filing Fee (ECF No. 3) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's complaint and this action are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Dated at Green Bay, Wisconsin this 21st day of August, 2025.