# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 23 , 2015 * Decided March 2 , 2015

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 14

- 2821

ELOUISE BRADLEY, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v

.

JENNIFER SABREE, et al., Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.

No. 14

- CV

- 429

- JPS

J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge

.

O R D E R

Elouise Bradley appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that she was denied due proce ss when her license to operate a childcare center was revoked. W e affirm.

* After examining the briefs and record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the brief s and record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2) (C)

. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 14

- 2821 Page 2

Although her complaint is difficult to follow, the crux of her claim is that officials from the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families revoked her license without providing her a hearing to contest the revocation. Bradley alleged that she ran a day

- care program (for eight children) until 2012

. That year, s he says

, a former employee ( who m Bradley had reported for mistreating a child ) called the DCF to report that Bradley was

r unning an “ illegal day care

. ” Based on that allegation and photographs of the center that were taken by a DCF employee without Bradley’s permission at a time when the space was being reorganized

, her license to operate a childcare center was revoked . The

r eason given for the revocation was u nsafe conditions

.
Bradley responded by filing the first of two suits challenging the revocation of her license. In 2012 s he sued the DCF , alleging racial discrimination in connection with the revocation. We upheld the district court’s dismissal of the suit because the D CF is not a
pe rson subject to liability under § 1983. See Bradley v. Wis. Dep’t of Children & Families , 528
F . App ’x 680 ( 7 th Cir. 2013) ; Will v. Mich

. Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989).

In 2014 Bradley filed this suit against three D CF officials and three employ ees of Lutheran Social Services, alleging that they d enied her due process by revoking her license without a hearing and failed to comply with W IS

. S TAT

. § 227.51(3) , which requires notice and an opportunity to show compliance before a license can be revoked

.

Both sets of defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, and t he district court granted the motions. The court determined that Bradley failed to state a claim against the DCF defendants because her exclusive remedy to challenge the DCF’s actions was through the state’s Administrative Procedure Act

,
see W IS

. S TAT

. §§ 48.72, 227.42

– .58
, and in any event she did not allege any ground on which relief could be granted. As for the non

- DCF defendants, the court explained that Bradley did not assert any claims against them in her complaint (the ir names appeared only as signatories on at tachments related to her foster

- care provider’s license )

.
On appeal Bradl e y ignores the court’s conclusion that the state’s APA provides the only means of challenging the DCF’s actions and continues to assert that she state d a due

- process claim when she alleged that the defendan ts violated W IS

. S TAT . § 227.51(3 ) by revoking her license without giving her an opportunity to show compliance with state regulations

. But t o the extent she argues that the DCF defendants did not follow state procedures, she cannot succeed. It is well est ablished that “a state’s violation of a state statute does not, as such, violate the federal Constitution.” Commonwealth Plaza Condo. Ass’n v. City of Chi

. , 6 93 F.3d 743, 749

– 50 (7 th Cir. 2012) (citing cases) ; Domka v.No. 14

- 2821 Page 3

Portage Cnty., Wis., 523 F.3d 776, 78 4 (7 th Cir. 2008). To the extent she argues that the
DCF defendants violated her due process rights because of random and unauthorized conduct

, once again she misses the point. In order to state a claim, she would need to suggest some inadequacy in Wisconsin’s process for review ing the revocation of a license , but she has not done so

. S ee W IS

. S TAT . §§ 48.72, 227.42

– .58; Michalowicz v. Vill. of Bedford Park, 528 F.3d 530, 534 (7th Cir. 2008); Doherty v. City of Chi

. , 75 F.3d 318, 323

– 24 (7th Cir. 19 96)

.
Bradley next generally challenges the district court’s dismissal of the non

- D CF defendants from the lawsuit . The district court’s order dismissing th ose parties considered both a possible failure to state a claim, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12( b)(6), and lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction, Rule 12(b)(1). Jurisdiction comes first, however, and so we begin (and end) with the d ismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) . B radley did

not mention the non

- DCF defendants in her complaint, and in any event, we can di scern no basis for federal jurisdiction over any claims she may have against them . She did not allege diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and her complaint reveals no possible non

- frivolous federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Crosby v. Cooper B

- Line, Inc., 725 F.3d 795, 800 (7th Cir. 2013 )

, cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1298 (2014)

. Further, Bradley does not develop an y argument on appeal suggesting how the district court erred in dismissing these defendants . Although we construe pro se filin gs liberally, pro se litigants still must give some reason to disturb the district court’s decision. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 28(a)(8)(A); Anderson v. Hardman , 241 F.3d 544, 545

– 46 (7 th Cir. 2001).

We have reviewed all of Bradley ’s remaining contentions, and n one has merit. A ccordingly, we A FFIRM the judgment.