King, Melissa v. McGraw, Allen et al

Filing 15

ORDER denying 10 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 14 Motion for Emergency Injunctive Relief. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 5/10/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MELISSA SUE KING,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

15-cv-257-wmc

ALLEN “RICK” MCGRAW, et al.,
Defendants.

On August 21, 2015, this court dismissed plaintiff Melissa Sue King’s complaint
against defendants Allen “Rick” McGraw, Wyleen McGraw, Lorna Garwood, Arnold D.
Darnell, Janet M. Funmaker, and Barbara J. Funmaker for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

As the court explained in its August 21 order, while King’s claims that

defendants harmed her by dealing drugs, abusing her and her children, killing her pets,
destroying her property, and engaging in various other criminal and illegal activities,
could hardly be more serious or disturbing, none raise federal claims over which this court
could exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Nor could the court exercise

jurisdiction over the claims based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as King
alleges that all of the parties are citizens of Wisconsin.
King has now filed a motion for reconsideration (dkt. #10), as well as a motion
for emergency injunctive relief (dkt. #14), asking the court to reinstate her lawsuit and to
issue an injunction against various local government officials. In her latest motions, King

1

maintains that defendants have continued to harm her and that local government
officials have colluded with defendants, judges and law enforcement to take her children
from her and to issue restraining orders against her.

Unfortunately for King, these

allegations also fail to state a claim over which this court has subject matter jurisdiction.
As the court explained to King previously, her allegations against the defendants, none of
whom appear to be government actors, do not implicate any federal statute or
constitutional provisions.
Nor do King’s new allegations against local government officials enable this court
to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Even if the court were to assume
that King was attempting to amend her complaint to include claims against these local
government officials, the court still lacks jurisdiction over the types of claims King is
alleging. In particular, King appears to be challenging decisions relating to child custody,
as well as court-issued restraining orders.1
This court simply cannot review those state court decisions. Child custody and
visitation decisions fall within the area of family or domestic relations, which is
exclusively governed by state law. See Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 625 (1987) (quoting In

To the extent King is attempting to raise other types of claims against state or local government
officials, the court cannot discern from her filings (1) who she is intending to sue or (2) what her
claims would be. Moreover, the allegations concerning state or local government officials that she
has included in her various filings are not clearly related to the claims against the defendants
named in her original complaint. If King wishes to sue governmental officials, she may want to
file a new lawsuit clearly identifying the names of the government officials she wishes to sue, as
well as the specific actions taken by each government official that she believes would support a
federal legal claim for relief against them. She should not, however, again attempt to file
documents asserting new claims against new defendants in this closed case.
1

2

re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)) (“[T]he whole subject of the domestic relations
of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the
laws of the United States.”); Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 (1979) (“Family relations
are a traditional area of state concern.”); De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 580 (1956)
(“[T]here is no federal law of domestic relations, which is primarily a matter of state
concern.”). Indeed, federal courts must refrain from exercising jurisdiction over claims
that would interfere with domestic-relations issues that belong in state court. Struck v.
Cook Cnty. Pub. Guardian, 508 F.3d 858, 859 (7th Cir. 2007).
Additionally, lower federal courts are precluded by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
from reviewing state-court judgments, such as a denial of visitation or a state-courtordered injunction or restraining order. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents a party
“complaining of an injury caused by [a] state-court judgment” from seeking redress in a
lower federal court. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291-92 (2005).
See also D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust
Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). Rather, litigants who feel that a state court proceeding
has violated their federal rights must generally assert those rights in state court and then
appeal that decision through the state court system and, as appropriate, to the United
States Supreme Court. See Golden v. Helen Sigman & Assoc., Ltd., 611 F.3d 356, 361-62
(7th Cir. 2010) (holding that Rooker-Feldman barred review of claims related to a state
court divorce and child custody proceedings); T.W. by Enk v. Brophy, 124 F.3d 893, 898
(7th Cir. 1997) (applying Rocker-Feldman to a Wisconsin child-custody decision).

3

For these reasons, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over King’s claims,
and her motion for reconsideration and motion for injunctive relief must be denied.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Melissa Sue King’s motion for reconsideration
(dkt. #10), and motion for emergency injunctive relief (dkt. #14) are DENIED.
Entered this 10th day of May, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge

4