Kristin Bausch v. Jacob Frost

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted January 31, 2024*
Decided January 31, 2024
Before
ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2418
KRISTIN BAUSCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JACOB FROST, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
No. 23-cv-61-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Kristin Bausch sued a Wisconsin judge, a guardian ad litem, and county workers
who are involved in her ongoing state case, alleging that the judge did not permit her to
oppose an order to garnish from her wages unpaid child support payments. The district
* 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. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2418 Page 2
court dismissed the case on numerous grounds. We affirm the dismissal based on the
requirement that we abstain from interfering in an ongoing family-court proceeding.
Bausch alleges that during her divorce proceedings, a state judge issued a
temporary order that she pay child support. When she did not pay, the court held a
contempt hearing and ordered Bausch’s employer to garnish her wages. According to
Bausch, at the hearing she was unable to oppose to her satisfaction the garnishment
order. As a result, she turned to federal district court, invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She
contends in this suit that the wage garnishment violated federal criminal statutes and
her constitutional rights.
The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed her
attempt to enforce criminal statutes because she lacked authority to invoke them. As for
the § 1983 claims, the court identified several obstacles: absolute immunity; abstention
under J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2021) (barring federal courts from
adjudicating claims that would interfere with ongoing domestic disputes in state court);
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983), Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); and the domestic-relations exception
to federal jurisdiction. Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992).
On appeal, Bausch contests these conclusions. When a district court has
identified numerous threshold issues that defeat a case, the appellate court may pick
from among them to affirm. Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp.,
549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007); Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584 (1999). We do
so here. Bausch argues that Rooker-Feldman does not apply because the state court has
not yet issued a final order. But by confirming that her state-court case is still ongoing,
she must lose on abstention grounds. Woodard holds that the comity, equity, and
federalism principles underlying the abstention doctrines require federal courts to
abstain from federal cases that would interfere with ongoing state-court domestic
proceedings. 97 F.3d at 722, 724. Bausch tells us that in her ongoing state-court domestic
proceeding, she continues to contest the constitutionality of its contempt hearing and
garnishment order. We thus must allow that state case to proceed without our
interference. See id. at 722–23.
We have reviewed Bausch’s remaining arguments, and none has merit.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --