Terrence Fitch v. THOMAS McADAMS

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted April 13, 2023*
Decided April 18, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2522
TERRENCE FITCH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
THOMAS McADAMS, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-C-0523
Lynn Adelman,
Judge.
O R D E R
Terrence Fitch appeals the dismissal of his suit against a Wisconsin state judge
and others involved in his child-support proceedings, who, he believes, violated his
civil rights by enforcing payments without due process. Because the district court
correctly dismissed his case as frivolous, we affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-2522 Page 2
In 2018, Fitch began litigating child-custody and support obligations in state
court. The state-court judge ordered preliminary child-support payments based on the
parents’ respective incomes. Fitch later lost his job. He submitted affidavits explaining
that he no longer had an income but did not submit tax returns or earnings information
that the judge had requested. As a result, the judge updated the child-support order
based on an estimate of Fitch’s income from his previous job. After Fitch eventually
secured new employment, the state child-support agency initiated wage-garnishment
proceedings. Fitch responded by filing affidavits and related motions contesting that he
could afford the court-ordered payments. But he did not appeal the final child-custody
and support decision.
In 2022, Fitch—more than $18,000 in arrears for child-support payments—
brought this civil rights suit against the state-court judge, the guardian ad litem, the
state-court clerk, and several state child-support agency attorneys. He asserted various
constitutional claims—primarily, violations of his due process rights in not receiving a
hearing before the state began enforcing support payments through wage garnishment
and property liens. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The district court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss Fitch’s complaint
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on two independent grounds. First, the court
determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred the suit because Fitch was seeking
redress for injuries caused by orders entered in the state court. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
Alternatively, the court concluded that the suit was frivolous and—as a sanction—
would be dismissed with prejudice. The court warned Fitch that he would face harsher
sanctions if he continued to file frivolous claims against these defendants.
On appeal, Fitch challenges the district court’s jurisdictional ruling and asserts
that the state defendants violated his constitutional rights by enforcing his child-
support obligations through a “fake and deceptive judicial process.” We agree with the
district court that Fitch’s suit is so devoid of merit that it fails to engage the jurisdiction
of the federal courts. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37 (1974); Restoration Risk
Retention Grp., Inc. v. Gutierrez, 880 F.3d 339, 346 (7th Cir. 2018). Fitch essentially
maintains that state employees violated his rights by completing their duties, but such
allegations provide no basis for civil liability in federal court.
Because we uphold the dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, we need not
address the defendants’ other bases for dismissal.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --