David Dixon v. Falen Rick, No. 19-1138 (7th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted October 23, 2019* Decided October 24, 2019 Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge No. 19-1138 DAVID DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FALEN RICK, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18 C 7897 Rebecca R. Pallmeyer, Chief Judge. ORDER David Dixon did not make child support payments, and Illinois state officials seized funds from his bank account to satisfy the debt. Dixon then sued the state officials and his bank in federal court. He requested that the court dismiss the child support claim against him, asserting that the seizure violated his rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and his right to be free from involuntary servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment. Although Dixon invoked We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). * No. 19-1138 Page 2 various federal claims, the district court concluded that, essentially, the complaint challenged state-court proceedings to establish and enforce Dixon’s child support obligation. As a result, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents federal district courts from setting aside state-court judgments. See Gilbert v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 2010). On appeal, Dixon repeats the same legal theories he advanced in the district court but fails to point to any basis for the district court’s jurisdiction over his claims. His failure to develop an argument challenging the district court’s jurisdictional determination waives his only possible avenue for appellate relief, and we could dismiss his brief on that basis. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Griffin v. TeamCare, 909 F.3d 842, 846 (7th Cir. 2018). In any event, we agree that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine—not to mention the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, see Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693–95, 716 (1992)—prevented the district court from reviewing the state-court order, see Gilbert, 591 F.3d at 900. AFFIRMED
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
