Charles L. Walker v. Dane County Child Support Agency

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted July 28, 2026*
Decided July 28, 2026
Before
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
Nos. 25-3173 & 25-3174
CHARLES L. WALKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DANE COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT
AGENCY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District
Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
Nos. 25-cv-817-jdp & 25-cv-907-jdp
James D. Peterson,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Charles Walker filed two lawsuits in federal court seeking injunctive relief and
damages for injuries arising out of state child-support proceedings. The district court
* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not
participating on appeal. We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument
because the brief and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral
argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED. R. APP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 4 --

Nos. 25-3173 & 25-3174 Page 2
dismissed his suits at screening, abstaining from some claims and finding the remainder
untimely, insufficiently pleaded, or barred by immunity doctrines. We affirm.
We accept as true all factual allegations in Walker’s complaints, and we take
judicial notice of the state-court proceedings underlying his claims. See Guerrero v.
Howard Bank, 74 F.4th 816, 819 (7th Cir. 2023). In 2007, Andrea Brendemuehl, an
attorney with the Dane County Child Support Agency in Wisconsin, initiated paternity
and child-support proceedings against Walker. Brendemuehl falsely represented to
Court Commissioner Mary Beth Keppel that she had exercised due diligence in
attempting to serve Walker with the paternity action, and Keppel issued a warrant for
Walker’s arrest. See WIS . S TAT. § 818.02(6) (respondent in child support or paternity
action may be arrested if court commissioner finds that, despite due diligence,
petitioner cannot effect service of process). Walker was arrested in 2008.1
Eventually, Walker began participating in the child-support proceedings, see In re
Paternity of S.J.W., No. 2007PA000676PJ (Dane Cnty. Cir. Ct.), but he fell behind on
payments. Although Walker earned income only through his Social Security Insurance
(SSI) payments, in 2023 Judge Jacob Frost ordered him to pay $134 per month toward
his unpaid obligations. In September 2023, Judge Frost issued a contempt order against
Walker, and Walker was arrested and jailed in January 2025 for failing to pay child
support. Walker appealed the arrearage order, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals has
since affirmed it, and Walker did not seek review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
See Bennett v. Walker (Walker I), No. 2025AP507 (Wis. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2026).
In June 2025, Walker requested records relating to the child-support proceedings
from a court clerk. He discovered that Brendemuehl had misrepresented her efforts to
serve him with process to manufacture probable cause for the 2007 arrest warrant and
then sealed and hid the relevant records. Walker then unsuccessfully moved to dismiss
the child-support proceedings. In August 2025, he appealed, contending that the circuit
court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, that Brendemuehl perpetrated fraud on the
court, and that his right to due process had been violated. See Bennett v. Walker (Walker
II), No. 2025AP001777 (Wis. Ct. App.). That appeal remains pending.
1 Walker’s complaint lacks specifics about his arrest. But he confirms in his
appellate brief that he was arrested in 2008, and we may consider factual allegations
made on appeal when they are consistent with the complaint. See Smoke Shop, LLC v.
United States, 761 F.3d 779, 785 (7th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 4 --

Nos. 25-3173 & 25-3174 Page 3
While his appeals were pending in state court, Walker filed these federal suits. In
the first, he alleged that Brendemuehl, Keppler, the Dane County Child Support
Agency, and the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families maliciously
prosecuted and falsely arrested him in violation of his rights under the Fourth
Amendment, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress in
violation of state law. In the second, he alleged that Judge Frost, the Dane County Child
Support Agency, and the Department of Children and Families violated his right to due
process, see id., and a federal regulation that insulates SSI payments from child support
obligations, see 5 C.F.R. § 581.104(j). In both suits, Walker sought damages and
injunctive relief.
The district court consolidated the cases, then screened and dismissed them
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court concluded that Walker’s claims regarding the 2007
arrest warrant were untimely and that Commissioner Keppler was entitled to judicial
immunity. The court next determined that Walker’s then-ongoing state-court appeal of
the arrearage order counseled in favor of abstention. See J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714,
722 (7th Cir. 2021) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). In the alternative, the
court concluded that Judge Frost was absolutely immune from suit, that Walker could
not sue the state directly, and that he had not alleged an unconstitutional policy or
practice that could result in the county’s liability under Monell v. Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Finally, the court denied Walker leave to amend his
complaint, reasoning that any amendment would be futile.
On appeal, Walker first objects to the district court’s dismissal of his claim that
his arrest pursuant to the allegedly fraudulent 2007 warrant violated the Fourth
Amendment.2 He generally contends that dismissal at the screening stage was
premature and that the cause of action did not accrue until he knew or reasonably
should have known of the injury. See Cielak v. Nicolet Union High Sch. Dist., 112 F.4th
472, 477 (7th Cir. 2024). The statute of limitations on a claim like Walker’s is six years,
see WIS . S TAT. § 893.53 (2007), but he did not file his federal lawsuit until 17 years after
his allegedly unlawful arrest. Walker has not developed any argument that the district
court erred by concluding that the time for him to have raised this claim has long since
passed. See Jackson v. City of Madison, 176 F.4th 1005, 1016 (7th Cir. 2026) (undeveloped
arguments are waived).
2 Walker does not pursue on appeal his claims of malicious prosecution or
intentional infliction of emotional distress, so we do not discuss them further.

-- 3 of 4 --

Nos. 25-3173 & 25-3174 Page 4
Walker next disputes the district court’s dismissal of his claims related to the
2023 arrearage order. He argues that the district court should not have abstained, Judge
Frost is not immune from suit, and the district court wrongly dismissed his claims
against the Department of Children and Families and the Dane County Child Support
Agency. Because the state proceedings related to the arrearage order are now complete,
we address only the district court’s conclusions that Judge Frost is immune, that Walker
could not sue a state agency, and that Walker failed to state a claim against the county.
See Richwine v. Matuszak, 148 F.4th 942, 951 (7th Cir. 2025) (explaining that abstention is
no longer appropriate where state proceeding has ended).
We agree with the district court that Judge Frost is immune from suit. Judges
acting within their jurisdiction and in their judicial capacity are absolutely immune
from suit. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356 (1978). Walker insists that Judge Frost
lacked authority to enter an order that violated federal law, and emphasizes that judges
are not immune for actions taken in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 356–57;
see Kowalski v. Boliker, 893 F.3d 987, 997 (7th Cir. 2018). But Judge Frost had jurisdiction
over the child-support matter; whether he acted “in error” or “in excess of his
authority” has no bearing on his immunity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356.
Likewise, the district court correctly concluded that Walker could not sue a state
agency like the Department of Children and Families, and that he failed to state a claim
against the county. As for the claim against the Department of Children and Families, a
state agency is not a “person” suable under § 1983. See Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State
Police, 491 U.S. 58, 64 (1989). As for the Monell claim against the county, Walker had to
allege a constitutional violation “properly attributable to the municipality itself.”
Thomas v. Neenah Joint Sch. Dist., 74 F.4th 521, 524 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting Dean v.
Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 18 F.4th 214, 235 (7th Cir. 2021)). But he did not allege any
facts plausibly suggesting that the county had an express policy or widespread practice
of pursuing child-support arrears from people whose only source of income is SSI
payments. And Walker’s allegations about the county’s actions toward him alone are
insufficient to state a claim for municipal liability. See id. at 524–25.
Lastly, Walker argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his
complaints without leave to amend. But Walker does not tell us how he would cure the
defects in his complaints, so we cannot say that the district court erred in concluding
that amendment would be futile. See Circle Block Partners, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.,
44 F.4th 1014, 1023 (7th Cir. 2022).
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --