Edward Weinhaus v. REGINA A. SCANNICCHIO and ILLINOIS JUDGES ASSOCIATION

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued June 4, 2025
Decided June 18, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
THOMAS L. KIRSCH, Circuit Judge
No. 24-2473
EDWARD WEINHAUS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REGINA A. SCANNICCHIO
and ILLINOIS JUDGES
ASSOCIATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:24-cv-03061
John Robert Blakey,
Judge.
O R D E R
Edward Weinhaus was ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs to his ex-wife
following the conclusion of their divorce proceedings. After an unsuccessful appeal in
state court, Weinhaus brought this federal suit against the judge who entered the order
and the Illinois Judges Association (a professional development organization), alleging
violations of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 24-2473 Page 2
The following facts are drawn from Weinhaus’s amended complaint, taken as
true, and from state-court filings, of which this court may take judicial notice.
See Fosnight v. Jones, 41 F.4th 916, 922 (7th Cir. 2022). Weinhaus initiated divorce
proceedings in the Circuit Court of Cook County. After a decree of divorce was issued,
various post-decree matters were resolved by Judge Regina Scannicchio.
Weinhaus’s ex-wife then petitioned for attorney’s fees and costs based on
Weinhaus’s litigiousness during the proceedings. Judge Scannicchio granted the
petition and ordered Weinhaus to pay $25,000. Weinhaus appealed, but the Illinois
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Weinhaus sought leave to appeal to the Illinois
Supreme Court, but his petition was denied.
Weinhaus then filed suit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the
defendants violated his equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment by interfering with his right to an impartial appeal. According to
Weinhaus, Judge Scannicchio conspired with fellow judges in the Illinois Judges
Association to convince the appellate court to dismiss his appeal. He sought damages
for the “financial injury” caused by litigation costs and the order to pay attorney’s fees.
The district court later dismissed the complaint as barred under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr.
Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The court explained that the substantive allegations in
Weinhaus’s complaint necessarily questioned the validity of a state-court judgment. The
court gave Weinhaus a chance to amend his complaint but found that the amended
complaint still implicated the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and dismissed the case.
On appeal, Weinhaus challenges the district court’s Rooker-Feldman analysis, but
Weinhaus’s amended complaint is subject to dismissal regardless because it fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. F ED. R. C IV. P. 12(b)(6). Weinhaus broadly
alleges conspiracy and interference but fails to support these claims of wrongdoing with
any factual conduct within his personal knowledge. Conclusory labels are insufficient
to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678–79 (2009). His complaint includes no factual allegations that would support a
reasonable inference that the defendants are responsible for the state court dismissing
his appeal. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007) (declining to take as
true the conclusory allegation “upon information and belief” that companies had
entered a conspiracy without enough facts to make that statement plausible);
see also Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc. v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 667 (7th Cir.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 24-2473 Page 3
2007). Without more, Weinhaus’s “allegation[s] of parallel conduct and bare assertion[s]
of conspiracy” are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 551, 556.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --