COURT OF APPEALS

DECISION

DATED AND FILED

March 10, 2021

Sheila T. Reiff

Clerk of Court of Appeals

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further editing. If 

published, the official version will appear in 

the bound volume of the Official Reports. 

A party may file with the Supreme Court a 

petition to review an adverse decision by the 

Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10 and 

RULE 809.62. 

Appeal No. 2020AP1251 Cir. Ct. No. 2020SC921

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS

DISTRICT II

TIMOTHY L. HOELLER,

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 V.

JUSTIN PERRAULT, FRANCESKA BACKUS AND GINA COLLETTI,

 DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Waukesha County: 

WILLIAM DOMINA, Judge. Affirmed. 

¶1 GUNDRUM, J.1 Timothy Hoeller appeals pro se from an order 

dismissing his compliant for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. For the following reasons, we affirm.

 

1

 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(a) (2017-18). 

All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2017-18 version unless otherwise noted.
No. 2020AP1251

2

Background

¶2 Hoeller filed this small claims court action against Justin Perrault, 

Franceska Backus, and Gina Colletti (Respondents). In his complaint, he references 

a February 22, 2019 letter apparently issued by Perrault, “Legal Clerk to Judge 

Michael Bohren,” which letter was included with the complaint. The letter states in 

toto:

 Your recent filing for a motion for a de novo hearing on 

your temporary restraining order has been reviewed by the 

court. After much consideration it has been determined that 

your motion is dismissed without prejudice. This is based 

upon the wording of the motion and because of the timing of 

its filing. 

 If you have any further questions please feel free to 

contact the civil division.

¶3 Hoeller indicates in his complaint that he “never appeared in Civil 

Temporary Restraining Order Case No. 18 CV 376, Carroll University v. Timothy 

L. Hoeller” and claims that “[t]he reason” he never appeared was this letter. He 

adds that “[t]he letter constitutes deception in which it looks like a court order but 

it is not.” He complains that when he appealed the Carroll University suit, “the 

appeal was deemed frivolous when [this] letter ... was read by the Court of Appeals 

and someone in the Trial Court acknowledged that the case was dismissed in the 

Trial Court based on that letter.” The complaint continues: “[The letter] attempts 

to simulate a court order in which, upon appeal, the letter was interpreted as an 

invalid reason for an appeal as it was deemed not a court order.” He then complains 

that “[n]o money that the Waukesha County Clerk of Court took for the appeal was 

ever refunded under the grounds that the letter denying hearing of the action was 

part of a sham action of the Waukesha County Clerk of Court to collect appeals fees 

and not provide Hoeller notice of his civil rights.”
No. 2020AP1251

3

¶4 Hoeller’s complaint continues: 

 In addition to the above allegations through [the letter], 

the [Respondents] have put themselves into the position of 

acting like a judge and exercising rights outside the norms of 

their job duties. 

 Even if [the Respondents] have not put themselves into 

the position of being a judge, the job duties that they are 

showing can be those of a law background like an attorney 

who has duties under guidelines of the 7th Circuit Court of 

Appeal to not interfere with cases.

Hoeller then references an attachment “where the terminology ‘obstructive 

impedes’ is used.” That attachment purports to be “Standards For Professional 

Conduct Within The Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit” and underlined in the 

preamble is “obstructive impedes the fundamental goal of resolving disputes 

rationally, peacefully, and efficiently.”

¶5 The Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on numerous 

grounds, including failure to effectuate proper service, failure to serve a written 

notice of claim under WIS. STAT. § 893.80, failure to state a claim, and the 

entitlement of the respondents to absolute and/or discretionary immunity. The 

circuit court granted the motion on the basis “that there is no claim stated that can 

be prosecuted.” The court continued: “Mr. Hoeller appears to complain that a letter 

signed by a clerical assistant to the Honorable Michael O. Bohren somehow created 

a cause of action.” The court indicated that “at a minimum” the clerk benefited from 

“quasi judicial immunity.” It added that “[t]he documents raise additional basis for 

dismissal and there appears to be no written submission in opposition.”

¶6 Hoeller’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied by 

the circuit court, with the court stating:

[Hoeller] again files a plethora of nonsensical material which 

purports to be a request for this Court to reconsider the 
No. 2020AP1251

4

dismissal of this matter after a de novo review of the record 

filings. As in the past, Mr. Hoeller provides neither coherent 

citation nor support for any basis upon which this court 

should reconsider the conclusion resulting in dismissal.

Hoeller appeals.

Discussion

¶7 We review de novo whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. See Doe 56 v. Mayo Clinic Health Sys.—Eau Claire 

Clinic, Inc., 2016 WI 48, ¶14, 369 Wis. 2d 351, 880 N.W.2d 681.

¶8 Carefully parsing through Hoeller’s complaint and the documents 

attached to it, it is as much a mystery to us as it was to the circuit court as to precisely 

what Hoeller’s claim is. His appellate briefing fails to provide much more light on 

his claim.

¶9 On appeal, Hoeller fails to sufficiently develop an argument and cites 

to no relevant legal authority in support of any of the assertions he makes.2 As we 

have stated, we do not consider insufficiently developed arguments, see Wisconsin 

Conf. Bd. of Trs. of United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Culver, 2001 WI 55, ¶38, 

243 Wis. 2d 394, 627 N.W.2d 469; W.H. Pugh Coal Co. v. State, 157 Wis. 2d 620, 

634, 460 N.W.2d 787 (Ct. App. 1990), and “we will not abandon our neutrality to 

develop arguments” for a party, Industrial Risk Insurers v. American Eng’g 

Testing, Inc., 2009 WI App 62, ¶25, 318 Wis. 2d 148, 769 N.W.2d 82. 

Furthermore, on appeal it is appellant’s burden to demonstrate that the circuit court 

 

2

 At several points in his briefing, Hoeller refers to per curiam decisions of this court. 

Pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 809.23(3)(a), with exceptions not applicable here, per curiam decisions 

are not precedent and may not be cited.
No. 2020AP1251

5

erred. Gaethke v. Pozder, 2017 WI App 38, ¶36, 376 Wis. 2d 448, 899 N.W.2d 

381. Hoeller has failed to satisfy this burden.3

By the Court.—Order affirmed.

This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT. RULE

809.23(1)(b)4.

 

3

 At one point Hoeller asserts that the Confrontation Clause applies to this case. This is a 

civil, not criminal, case, and neither the state nor federal confrontation clause right applies in a civil 

case. Town of Geneva v. Tills, 129 Wis. 2d 167, 176, 384 N.W.2d 701 (1986).