Brian K. O’neil Ii v. Maxwell Carter

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted May 20, 2026*
Decided May 21, 2026
Before
THOMAS L. KIRSCH II, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, Circuit Judge
REBECCA TAIBLESON, Circuit Judge
No. 25-2517
BRIAN K. O’NEIL II,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MAXWELL CARTER, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 25-CV-1007-JPS
J. P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Brian O’Neil was a party in two divorce actions in the Milwaukee County Circuit
Court that he alleges violated his constitutional rights. He brought this suit seeking
damages and injunctive relief, including a declaration that the state court lacks
* The 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 F ED. R. APP . P. 34(a)(2).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 25-2517 Page 2
jurisdiction over the divorce proceedings and a halt of all related state court actions. The
district court dismissed O’Neil’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We conclude
the district court rightly refused to exercise federal jurisdiction and affirm its judgment.
O’Neil’s wife—acting through her attorney, Maxwell Carter—initiated divorce
proceedings in 2024. O’Neil v. O’Neil, No. 2024FA004011 (Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Ct.
dismissed May 5, 2025). Fred Meier, a process server, unsuccessfully attempted to serve
O’Neil six times, so Judge Gwen Connolly dismissed the action without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. O’Neil moved the court to dismiss the case with prejudice,
seemingly arguing that because he and his wife were not married in Wisconsin (the
wedding was in Jamaica), divorce proceedings in Wisconsin were improper. O’Neil
refused to appear at the hearing on the matter, so Judge Connolly denied the motion for
failure to prosecute and the case remained dismissed without prejudice.
A few days later, Carter refiled the same petition. O’Neil v. O’Neil,
No. 2025FA001756 (Milwaukee Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Meier made six more attempts to serve
O’Neil. On one occasion, O’Neil refused to open his car door or roll down the window,
so Meier eventually left the papers on the car’s windshield. According to O’Neil, Meier
used profanity, made threats, and impersonated a police officer, all in front of O’Neil’s
daughter. O’Neil and Meier contested before Judge Frederick Rosa whether service was
completed. Meanwhile, Carter, acting on behalf of O’Neil’s wife, moved the court to
issue an ex parte restraining order prohibiting O’Neil from selling or damaging marital
property or evicting his wife from their home, as she said he had threatened to do
repeatedly. Judge Rosa issued the restraining order.
Believing that his constitutional rights had been violated, O’Neil sued
Judge Connolly, Judge Rosa, attorney Carter, and process-server Meier under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. He sought both monetary damages and emergency injunctive relief that would
halt the state-court proceedings and any further attempts to serve him. The district
court screened the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and, relying on the domestic-
relations exception to federal jurisdiction, determined that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice. Even if it did have jurisdiction,
the court explained, Judge Connolly was likely protected by judicial immunity for her
rulings during the first lawsuit, and it concluded it should abstain from interfering with
the ongoing state case under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). O’Neil moved the
court to reconsider its decision, insisting that his complaint sought relief for civil-rights
violations, not an adjudication of his divorce, but the court again explained that the
domestic-relations exception barred the case from proceeding in federal court.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 25-2517 Page 3
On appeal, O’Neil challenges the district court’s conclusion that it lacked
jurisdiction under the domestic-relations exception. This narrow doctrine prohibits
federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over divorce, alimony, and child custody
decrees. Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 307–08 (2006); Kowalski v. Boliker, 893 F.3d
987, 995–96 (7th Cir. 2018) (applying exception to federal-question suit). State courts,
which have developed procedures tailored to core domestic-relations matters, are more
proficient at handling such issues. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703–04
(1992); Struck v. Cook Cnty. Pub. Guardian, 508 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2007).
We agree with the district court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction over O’Neil’s
claims. O’Neil’s claims all revolve around his state divorce proceedings and “threaten
interference with and disruption of local family law proceedings—a robust area of law
traditionally reserved for state and local government—to such a degree as to all but
compel the federal judiciary to stand down.” J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714, 723 (7th Cir.
2021). We have upheld a court’s abstention over claims that seek “affirmatively or
offensively to shape—or perhaps change—the direction and course of the state court
proceedings.” Id. And it is difficult to imagine a more brazen example than O’Neil’s
demand that all such proceedings, including service of process, be stopped in their
tracks. The court’s duty to abstain applies equally to O’Neil’s requests for monetary
damages and justifies dismissal rather than a stay. Id. at 724–25.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --