DeJUAN ANTHONY MASON v. Walworth County Child Support Enforcement Agency

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted September 18, 2023*
Decided September 18, 2023
Before
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 23-1300
DeJUAN ANTHONY MASON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WALWORTH COUNTY CHILD
SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCY,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
No. 22-CV-1303-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
After DeJuan Anthony Mason failed to pay child support, a Wisconsin state court
held him in contempt and a state enforcement agency collected his debt. Mason sued
the agency and others in federal court, alleging that the state court’s order and the
enforcement actions related to his unpaid child support violated his constitutional
* 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. A PP . P. 34(a)(2).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-1300 Page 2
rights. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from hearing cases
brought by state-court losers who complain of injuries caused by state-court judgments.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283–84 (2005) (citing Rooker v.
Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).1
On appeal, Mason does not meaningfully develop an argument in his brief,
see F ED. R. A PP . P. 28(a)(8), but we understand him generally to challenge the district
court’s jurisdictional ruling. As he asserted in his amended complaint, he seeks to have
the district court “[v]oid all associated orders and judgments” by the state court
regarding his unpaid child support. But asking a federal district court to redress a
wrong in a state court’s judgment is squarely what Rooker-Feldman prohibits. See Exxon
Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284; Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 676 (7th Cir. 2017).
AFFIRMED
1 The district court analyzed whether Mason’s injuries were “inextricably
intertwined” with state court determinations, but we have discouraged using that
phrase because of its potential to blur the boundary between nonjurisdictional matters
of preclusion and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which is jurisdictional. See, e.g., Milchtein
v. Chisholm, 880 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 2018); Iqbal v. Patel, 780 F.3d 728, 730 (7th Cir.
2015); Richardson v. Koch Law Firm, P.C., 768 F.3d 732, 734 (7th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 2 --