United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON District Judge
plaintiff Pat Schottler brings this action for the alleged
violations of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
The “root” of this case, Schottler says,
“comes from asking a girl out on a date.” Dkt. 1,
at 5. Schottler repeatedly made unwelcomed romantic advances
toward defendant Jane Doe, but she saw those advances as
harassment. She hired an attorney, defendant Kristina E.
Williamson, who secured from a Wisconsin state court an
injunction that enjoined Schottler from harassing Jane Doe.
Schottler says he was arrested 17 times apparently for
harassing Jane Doe. Dkt. 1, at 6.
has filed three documents: (1) a complaint, Dkt. 1, (2) a
request for summons, Dkt. 7, and (3) a “motion for
publicity, ” Dkt. 3. Each lacks merit. Schottler has
paid the $400 filing fee. Defendants move to dismiss
Schottler's claims. I will grant their motions and
dismiss the action.
understand Schottler to contend that his right to freedom of
speech was allegedly violated on two occasions: (1) when the
St. Croix County Circuit Court enjoined him from harassing
Jane Doe; and (2) when the state court denied his request to
order the news media to publish his harassment case on the
news. Schottler is suing Jane Doe, her attorney defendant
Kristina E. Williamson, and the State of Wisconsin. His other
submissions suggest that he would also like to bring claims
against the state court judges who have entered orders
against him and denied his requests for relief.
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, this court has no
jurisdiction to review the challenged decisions by Wisconsin
state courts. If Schottler thought that those decisions
violated his constitutional rights, he must appeal them
through state courts and then ultimately to the United States
Supreme Court. See Brown v. Bowman, 668 F.3d 437,
442 (7th Cir. 2012); Young v. Murphy, 90 F.3d 1225,
1230 (7th Cir. 1996). Although it is difficult to understand
exactly what Schottler is asking for, he appears to believe
that the next step in challenging the state court decisions
is to file a suit in a federal district court. See
Dkt. 1, at 4 (“This case is being brought into federal
court, because all attempts, to have Pat Schottler
constitutional rights upheld have been exhausted with in the
State of Wisconsin”). He is mistaken.
from the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the Eleventh
Amendment bars his claims against the State of Wisconsin.
See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 337 (1979);
Thomas v. Ill., 697 F.3d 612, 613 (7th Cir. 2012)
(“The suit is against a state and a state agency and
Congress did not abrogate the states' sovereign immunity
from suit under section 1983, as it could have done.”).
Likewise, he may not proceed against Williamson. Although he
appears to allege that Williamson violated his first
amendment rights, Schottler does not indicate that Williamson
is a state actor or that she may “fairly be said to be
a state actor.” London v. RBS Citizens, N.A.,
600 F.3d 742, 746 (7th Cir. 2010). And under Wisconsin law,
an attorney generally cannot “be held liable to third
parties for any acts committed within the scope of an
attorney-client agency relationship.” Green Spring
Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis.2d 304, 321, 401 N.W.2d 816,
823 (1987). Williamson, an attorney who had an obligation to
advance her client's interests, cannot be liable for
doing her job.
Schottler proceed against Jane Doe. Although he lists Jane
Doe as a defendant on his complaint, he does not allege any
wrong doing on her part. He therefore fails to state a claim
Request for summons
has filed a letter asking for summons to be issued for
various state officials, who are mostly state judges. Dkt. 7.
I take this letter to mean that he seeks to assert claims
against those individuals. Although Schottler has not yet
filed a complaint naming these officials, the State of
Wisconsin has moved to dismiss Schottler's letter. Dkt.
10 and Dkt. 13 (amended motion). These officials are all
entitled to judicial immunity. Schottler therefore has not
stated a claim against these officials, even if I were to
treat Schottler's letter as a supplement to his
Motion for publicity
has also filed a document titled “motion for
publicity.” Dkt. 3. In that document, he states the
I am asking the Federal Judge to rule, that the state can not
punish Pat Schottler in any way, for sending this case and
all it's contents to the news. IN MY opinion it is not
appropriate, for a federal judge to cover up for state
judges, by denying publicity of a case (United States
Constitution Amendment I) where the state failed to uphold
one's freedom of speech. If the state messed up,
publicity helps them to make the right decision next time.
Id. I assume, based on the title of the document,
that he wishes the court to assist him in obtaining publicity
over this case. He seeks relief that has no basis in law,
although the court's action in this case, ...