Judges: PerCuriam
Filed: May 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 21, 2014* Decided May 22, 2014 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge No. 13---3158 Appeal from the United States District Court for the MARGARET BACH, Eastern District of Wisconsin. Plaintiff---Appellant, v. No. 13---CV---370 Nancy Joseph, Magistrate
Summary: NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted May 21, 2014* Decided May 22, 2014 Before RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge No. 13---3158 Appeal from the United States District Court for the MARGARET BACH, Eastern District of Wisconsin. Plaintiff---Appellant, v. No. 13---CV---370 Nancy Joseph, Magistrate J..
More
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 21, 2014*
Decided May 22, 2014
Before
RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge
JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
No. 13-‐‑3158 Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
MARGARET BACH, Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Plaintiff-‐‑Appellant,
v. No. 13-‐‑CV-‐‑370
Nancy Joseph, Magistrate Judge.
MILWAUKEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, et al.,
Defendants-‐‑Appellees.
Order
This is the latest in a flurry of suits that Margaret Bach has filed in an effort to over-‐‑
turn custody and guardianship orders that a state court entered with respect to her dis-‐‑
abled, adult son Aaron. Two years ago we affirmed the dismissal of one of those suits,
holding (among other things) that federal courts (other than the Supreme Court of the
United States) lack the authority to override a state judge’s decision in civil litigation,
* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).
No. 13-‐‑3158 Page 2
and that Margaret cannot assert Aaron’s rights, because she is not his guardian. Bach v.
Milwaukee County, No. 11-‐‑3485 (July 24, 2012) (nonprecedential decision). Notwithstand-‐‑
ing that order, Margaret attempts in this suit to have a federal court supersede the state
court’s decisions; she also attempts to litigate on Aaron’s behalf. We have removed him
from the list of parties for the reasons covered in our 2012 order. The remainder of Mar-‐‑
garet’s arguments are equally unavailing.
She asked the district court to annul a state-‐‑court order appointing Life Navigators
as Aaron’s guardian, repeal visitation guidelines implemented by Life Navigators, or-‐‑
der that she be allowed regular visits with Aaron, and award her money damages to be
paid by Milwaukee County, the state-‐‑court judge, Aaron’s guardian ad litem, and Life
Navigators for infliction of emotional distress brought about by the restrictions on her
interactions with her son. She also sought relief from a state-‐‑court injunction that pro-‐‑
hibits her from filing lawsuits on Aaron’s behalf; picketing in the vicinity of Aaron’s res-‐‑
idence, health care providers, or legal representatives; or communicating with Aaron’s
physicians. A magistrate judge, proceeding with the parties’ consent, see 28 U.S.C.
§636(c), denied Margaret’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, concluding that she is
not indigent and that in any event she is not authorized to act as Aaron’s lawyer. The
magistrate judge also explained to Margaret that the relief she sought is “not within the
purview of th[e] Court” and that several of the defendants against whom she made
claims—including Milwaukee County, the state-‐‑court judge, and Aaron’s guardian ad
litem—are immune from liability. The magistrate judge gave Margaret leave to amend
her complaint with regard to her claim that the visitation guidelines and the state-‐‑court
injunction violated the First Amendment.
Margaret amended her complaint to add 17 new defendants. The revised complaint
includes claims on Aaron’s behalf (including challenges to the visitation guidelines and
the state-‐‑court’s injunction order) plus new allegations relating to “federal violations
since the previous complaint filing.” These recent federal violations, Margaret asserted,
occurred when Milwaukee police officer Jullian Goggans misunderstood the state
court’s injunction and told her to leave a public park near Aaron’s group home.
The magistrate judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Margaret’s com-‐‑
plaint for lack of subject-‐‑matter jurisdiction. The magistrate judge reiterated that she
could not unset the state court’s rulings (this is one effect of the Rooker-‐‑Feldman doctrine,
which our 2012 order discusses) and that Margaret could not file lawsuits on Aaron’s
behalf. The judge dismissed the First Amendment allegations because the amended
complaint failed to say how any of the defendants violated Margaret’s rights; most of
the allegations assailed the defendants merely for being present at the state court hear-‐‑
ing at which the injunction was signed. The magistrate judge further concluded that the
No. 13-‐‑3158 Page 3
Milwaukee County Circuit Court, as an arm of the state, is not an entity that can be
sued (states are not “persons” for the purpose of 42 U.S.C. §1983, see Will v. Michigan
Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989)), and that state trial judge Jane Carroll is en-‐‑
titled to absolute judicial immunity for issuing the guardianship orders. In addition,
Elizabeth Ruthmansdorfer, the guardian ad litem, is not a state actor subject to §1983.
Regarding Milwaukee County, the magistrate judge determined that Margaret’s al-‐‑
legations pertained to Aaron’s care, guardianship, and placement—matters that cannot
be challenged in federal court. The magistrate judge added that neither the Milwaukee
County Mental Health Complex nor the Police Department could be sued separately
from Milwaukee County. The judge also found that Margaret’s claims against the agen-‐‑
cy Disability Rights Wisconsin, Inc., did not identify any concrete legal claim for relief,
and that the complaint did not allege how the actions of one of Aaron’s doctors, Gary
Stark, deprived her of constitutional rights. Regarding Life Navigators, the magistrate
judge reiterated that Margaret’s allegations concerning the visitation guidelines failed to
state a plausible claim for relief. Finally, with regard to Officer Goggans, the magistrate
judge concluded that Margaret failed to state a claim (1) that she had been seized for
Fourth Amendment purposes or (2) that she had been treated differently from similarly
situated individuals for purposes of a “class of one” claim under the Equal Protection
Clause.
In this court, Margaret insists that Aaron is a plaintiff. She also continues to dispute
the appointment of Life Navigators as his guardian and to seek relief from the state
court’s injunction. Our decision in 2012 covered this ground. Even if our analysis were
problematic (and Margaret does not make a serious attempt to undermine it), it would
continue to control under doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.
Margaret’s allegations concerning Officer Goggans are outside the scope of our 2012
decision. She maintains that she was seized in a public park because she believed that
Goggans would have used force to arrest her if she failed to leave. But, as the magistrate
judge concluded, Margaret’s own allegations show that Goggans required her only to
leave the park; he did not try to take her into custody, handcuff her, or apply physical
force. A reasonable person therefore would have felt free to leave, as Margaret herself
did. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Oak Lawn, 735 F.3d 967, 971–72 (7th Cir. 2013) (woman not
seized when ordered to leave home because officers did not threaten, grab, or touch
her); Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Service, Inc., 771 F.2d 194, 200 (7th Cir. 1985) (man not
seized when detective was verbally abusive and threatened him with arrest warrant
over phone because he was not physically confronted and could easily terminate en-‐‑
counter); James v. Wilkes-‐‑Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 682 (3d Cir. 2012) (woman not seized when
police orders were unaccompanied by physical touch or showing of weapons).
No. 13-‐‑3158 Page 4
Margaret contests the district court’s conclusion that she did not state a “class of
one” claim; she maintains that Goggans treated her differently from the park’s other
visitors. But Margaret does not allege that there were other similarly situated persons in
the park (i.e., other women subject to restraining orders) or that she was treated differ-‐‑
ently for no rational reason.
As for the First Amendment: her assertion that the state-‐‑court judge, attorneys, and
guardians violated her “right to free speech, privacy [and] freedom of association” by
“supporting” the court’s visitation guidelines is too vague to give notice to the defend-‐‑
ants about the nature of her First Amendment claim. People are entitled to make argu-‐‑
ments to state judges, and the fact that the state judge accepts an argument and enters
relief does not convert the argument (or implementation of the resulting order) into a
violation of the Constitution. See BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (2002).
Margaret has abused the judicial process by filing multiple frivolous suits, many of
which, like this one, could not succeed unless the court were prepared to ignore the
outcome of her earlier suits. Many of these suits name judges and courts as parties, de-‐‑
spite their absolute immunity. We collect her other suits in a footnote.† Margaret is a
lawyer, but her litigation reflects refusal to recognize that established law, such as judi-‐‑
cial immunity, the limits of federal jurisdiction under the Rooker-‐‑Feldman doctrine, and
the doctrines of preclusion, apply to her. The current suit defies an injunction, issued by
a state judge, forbidding Margaret from attempting to litigate on Aaron’s behalf.
Refusal to take no for an answer, and a campaign of unending litigation, are intoler-‐‑
able and sanctionable. See, e.g., Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647 (7th Cir. 1995). We
† In addition to the suit we resolved in 2012, Margaret has filed at least three civil actions in state
court concerning Aaron’s guardianship. See Bach v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, No.
2013CV2071 (Wis. Cir. Ct. 2013); Bach v. Milwaukee County, No. 2010CV21369 (Wis. Cir. Ct. 2012); Bach v.
Milwaukee County, No. 2009CV16167 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Nov. 11, 2011). She has also filed fourteen appeals in
the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and Supreme Court pertaining to Aaron’s placement and guardianship.
See Bach v. Life Navigators, Inc., No. 2013AP1758 (Wis. Ct. App.) (under advisement); Bach v. Court of Ap-‐‑
peals, District I, No. 2013AP115 (Wis. 2013); Margaret B. v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, No. 2013AP4
(Wis. 2013); Margaret B. v. County of Milwaukee, No. 2012XX1059 (Wis. Ct. App. Dist. 1) (case ongoing);
Margaret B. v. Carroll, No. 2012AP1883 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012); Margaret B. v. County of Milwaukee, No.
2012AP1176 (Wis. Ct. App. 2013); Aaron B. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, No. 2012AP146 (Wis.
2012); Aaron B. v. County of Milwaukee, No. 2011AP2287 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012); Margaret B. v. Milwaukee
County, No. 2011AP2104 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011); Margaret B. v. Milwaukee County, No. 2010AP1588 (Wis. Ct.
App. 2011); Aaron B. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County, 2010AP1352 (Wis. June 10, 2010); Margaret B. v.
Milwaukee County, 2009AP2450 (Wis. Ct. App. 2011); Aaron B. v. Circuit Court for Milwaukee County,
2009AP2180 (Wis. 2009); Margaret B. v. Milwaukee County, No. 2008AP2653 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009).
No. 13-‐‑3158 Page 5
give Margaret 14 days to show cause why the court should not impose sanctions under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 38 for a frivolous appeal. Margaret must understand that, if the court
awards financial sanctions, she must pay promptly or be subject to a preclusion order
under Support Systems International, Inc. v. Mack, 45 F.3d 185 (7th Cir. 1995). See also,
e.g., In re Chicago, 500 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2007).
AFFIRMED; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED
