# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 14, 2013 *

Decided April 15, 2013

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 12

‐ 1550

STEVEN R. SCHMIDT, Appeal from the

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

v. No. 10

‐ C

‐ 1019

WISCONSIN DIVISION OF Aaron E. Goodstein,

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, Magistrate Judge

. Defendant

‐ Appellee

.

O R D E R

Steven Schmidt, a business owner and client of the Wisconsin Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation, appeals the grant of summary judgment for the Division in this suit under

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. We affirm. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

.

P. 34(a)(2)(C).No. 12

‐ 1550 Page 2

Schmidt operates his own business installing telephone and multimedia systems but

suffers from an immune

‐ system disorder called agammaglobulinemia. This condition,

which causes fatigue and limits his ability to work more than a few days at a time, qualified

him to seek vocational rehabilitation services from the Division. The Division is a state

agency that receives federal funding under the Rehabilitation Act in return for complying

with certain federal guidelines. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 720–723. Among these are that it help its

clients develop an “individualized plan for employment” (IPE) and identify the resources

necessary to achieve their goals. See id. § 722(b). Schmidt requested that his IPE include

funding from the Division for several business

‐ related expenses, including a new truck,

equipment (such as wire and jacks), insurance, and cleaning costs. But Division counselors

denied these requests and eventually closed his case file in 2010 with his business plan still

unapproved.

Schmidt requested an administrative due

‐ process hearing, see id. § 722(c)(5)(A), and

challenged the Division’s closing of his case file and denial of requested items from his IPE.

The hearing officer ordered the Division to reopen Schmidt’s case file and continue

developing his business plan but declined to address Schmidt’s claims regarding the truck,

equipment, insurance, and cleaning costs; according to the officer, Schmidt did not seek a

hearing on those claims until well beyond the 12

‐ month deadline to challenge the agency’s

denials. See W IS

. A DMIN

. C ODE DWD § 75.05(1). At the hearing Schmidt also sought to

challenge the denial of his request for financial analysis of his business plan, but the hearing

officer declined to address this claim because it fell outside the scope of Schmidt’s initial

hearing request and he had not sought to amend his hearing request within the requisite

five days before the hearing. See id. DWD § 75.08.

Schmidt then sought review in the district court, see 29 U.S.C. § 722(c)(5)(J), asserting

that the hearing officer should have adjudicated his claims for the truck, equipment,

insurance, cleaning costs, and financial analysis because he was unaware of the deadlines

for presenting those claims under Wisconsin administrative law. A magistrate judge,

presiding by consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), granted summary judgment in favor of the

Division, finding no evidence that the hearing officer had erred in her decision to exclude

those claims from review.

Before reaching the merits, we want to address two antecedent issues. The first

concerns finality. The hearing officer explained to Schmidt that in light of the reopening of

his case file with the Division, he could resubmit his requests for the items that were

previously denied by the agency. Their exclusion from his previous IPE, the hearing officer

determined, “does not mean that they may not be properly approved in the future if

[Schmidt] is provided the appropriate assistance in completing his business plan and they

are included in his IPE.” This statement makes Schmidt’s desire for federal review puzzlingNo. 12

‐ 1550 Page 3

because the relief he seeks indirectly through the courts can instead be pursued directly

through the agency once again. Nevertheless, we find nothing in the Rehabilitation Act that

makes prior agency decisions unreviewable upon the reopening of a case file. We thus

conclude that Schmidt’s claims present a redressable controversy.

The second antecedent issue concerns exhaustion. Wisconsin provides for review of

a hearing officer ʹ s decision by an ʺ administrator, ʺ see W IS

. A DM

. C ODE DWD § 75.19, and it

does not appear from the record that Schmidt sought review by the final administrative

authority before appealing to the district court. But the exhaustion requirement in the

Rehabilitation Act, as in many other federal statutes, is a claim

‐ processing rule rather than a

jurisdictional barrier, cf. Glade ex rel. Lundskow v. United States

, 692 F.3d 718, 723 (7th Cir.

2012); Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago

, 434 F.3d 527, 532–33 (7th Cir. 2006), and

because the Division has never raised it as an affirmative defense, we conclude that it has

been waived.

On the merits Schmidt renews on appeal his argument that his lack of knowledge of

Wisconsin administrative law excuses his failure to comply with the relevant deadlines for

presenting his claims to the hearing officer. But although Schmidt did not have legal

representation, mistakes of law (even by plaintiffs proceeding pro se) generally do not

excuse compliance with deadlines or warrant tolling a statute of limitations. See McNeil v.

United States

, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993); Arrieta v. Battaglia

, 461 F.3d 861, 867 (7th Cir. 2006);

Williams v. Sims

, 390 F.3d 958, 963 (7th Cir. 2004); McMasters v. United States

, 260 F.3d 814,

818 (7th Cir. 2001) ; Jackson v. Astrue

, 506 F.3d 1349, 1356 (11th Cir. 2007). Schmidt does not

present any sound basis for an exception here.

Schmidt also asserts that the magistrate judge did not consult the transcript of the

due

‐ process hearing and thus based his ruling on insufficient evidence. But Schmidt did not

oppose summary judgment on the basis of insufficient evidence before the magistrate judge,

so he cannot pursue the argument here. See Chi. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. Village of

Schaumburg

, 644 F.3d 353, 356 (7th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.