Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03637/USCOURTS-ca7-14-03637-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 19, 2015*

Decided March 20, 2015

Before

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 14‐3637

RICHARD S. DENIS,

Plaintiff‐Appellant,

v.

RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD., and

CIRCUIT COURT OF BROWN

COUNTY, WISCONSIN,

Defendants‐Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 14‐C‐1341

William C. Griesbach,

Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Richard Denis appeals the dismissal of his civil‐rights suit asserting that he was

denied due process in a state‐court debt‐collection proceeding brought against him. We

affirm.

                                                 

* The defendants were not served in the district court and are not participating in

this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded

that this appeal is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 14-3637 Document: 8 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 2
No. 14‐3637    Page 2

As set forth in Denis’s complaint, a Wisconsin state court violated his due process

rights in a debt‐collection suit by entering summary judgment against him rather than

acceding to his request to have the case be decided by a jury. After the summary

judgment was affirmed by a state appellate court, Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd. v. Denis, 847

N.W.2d 426 (Wis. Ct. App. 2014), and his petition for review denied by the Wisconsin

Supreme Court, Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd. v. Denis, 855 N.W.2d 695 (Wis. 2014), Denis

brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Riverwalk Holdings, the creditor, and

the state trial court. At screening, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the district court pointed out

that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review cases that attack state‐court judgments, and

it dismissed Denis’s complaint under the Rooker‐Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Ct. of App. v.

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).

On appeal Denis asserts that the district court overlooked his due‐process claim

that he was denied his right to a jury trial. But this injury of which he complains was

caused by the state court’s grant of summary judgment. The district court correctly

concluded that Rooker‐Feldman blocks federal courts from entertaining suits seeking to

redress injuries caused by state‐court judgments. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Harold v. Steel, 773 F.3d 884, 885 (7th Cir. 2014).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-3637 Document: 8 Filed: 03/20/2015 Pages: 2