DeJuan A. Mason v. Walworth County Child Support Enforcement Agency, No. 23-1300 (7th Cir. 2023)
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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with FED.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 September 18, 2023 * Decided September 18, 2023 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge No. 23-1300 DeJUAN ANTHONY MASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. v. WALWORTH COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 22-CV-1303-JPS J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge. ORDER After DeJuan Anthony Mason failed to pay child support, a Wisconsin state court held him in contempt and a state enforcement agency collected his debt. Mason sued the agency and others in federal court, alleging that the state court’s order and the enforcement actions related to his unpaid child support violated his constitutional Appellees were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have concluded that the case is appropriate for summary disposition. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). * No. 23-1300 Page 2 rights. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from hearing cases brought by state-court losers who complain of injuries caused by state-court judgments. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283–84 (2005) (citing Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)). 1 On appeal, Mason does not meaningfully develop an argument in his brief, see FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8), but we understand him generally to challenge the district court’s jurisdictional ruling. As he asserted in his amended complaint, he seeks to have the district court “[v]oid all associated orders and judgments” by the state court regarding his unpaid child support. But asking a federal district court to redress a wrong in a state court’s judgment is squarely what Rooker-Feldman prohibits. See Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284; Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 676 (7th Cir. 2017). AFFIRMED The district court analyzed whether Mason’s injuries were “inextricably intertwined” with state court determinations, but we have discouraged using that phrase because of its potential to blur the boundary between nonjurisdictional matters of preclusion and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which is jurisdictional. See, e.g., Milchtein v. Chisholm, 880 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 2018); Iqbal v. Patel, 780 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir. 2015); Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C., 768 F.3d 732, 734 (7th Cir. 2014). 1
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.
