Kimberly Howell v. Manitowoc County Human Services

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted October 4, 2023*
Decided October 5, 2023
Before
DIANE S. SYKES, Chief Judge
DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge
CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2184
KIMBERLY HOWELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MANITOWOC COUNTY HUMAN
SERVICES, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 21-CV-1069-JPS
J.P. Stadtmueller,
Judge.
O R D E R
Kimberly Howell appeals the dismissal of her suit against various local
government employees whom she accuses of violating her constitutional rights by
terminating her guardianship over her grandchildren without due process. The district
judge dismissed the action without prejudice. We affirm.
* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs
and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would
not significantly aid the court. 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NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION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 3 --

No. 22-2184 Page 2
In a wide-ranging civil-rights complaint, see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Howell alleged that
City of Manitowoc and Manitowoc County employees unlawfully participated in
actions that resulted in the termination of her guardianship and removal of her
grandchildren from her custody. The details are not clear, but she alleged that two of
her disabled grandchildren were unconstitutionally removed from school and
interviewed by a social worker and police officer; that while she was away from her
home, these same two individuals interviewed one of her granddaughters and
eventually removed all of her grandchildren from her home; that these actions were
conducted in exchange for federal funds and kickbacks; that criminal charges were
trumped up against her; that her due-process rights were violated during state
guardianship and Child in Need of Protection and/or Services proceedings; and that a
state-court judge ordered her to undergo a mental-health assessment in her criminal
case in retaliation for recusal motions she filed against the judge. Howell sought the
return of her grandchildren and millions of dollars in punitive damages.
The judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case. See F ED. R. C IV.
P. 12(b)(1), (6). To the extent Howell’s state-court proceedings were ongoing, the judge
explained that her suit would be barred under the Younger abstention doctrine because
federal courts may not intervene in ongoing state criminal cases or state child-welfare or
child-custody proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Milchtein v.
Chisholm, 880 F.3d 895, 898–99 (7th Cir. 2018). And to the extent the state-court
proceedings were closed, the judge added, Howell’s suit was barred under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine because she was seeking redress for injuries caused by orders entered
in the state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Colum. Ct. of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
On appeal Howell asserts that her state-court proceedings have closed, and she
asks us to reverse the state court’s decision regarding her guardianship. But as the judge
rightly pointed out, if her state-court proceedings have ended, her claims are barred by
the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. That doctrine prohibits “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Suits based on the injuries caused by state-
court judgments, such as those Howell alleged, are exactly what the Rooker–Feldman
doctrine prohibits. Id. Howell tries to avoid the Rooker–Feldman bar by asserting fraud in
the guardianship proceedings, but there is no general fraud exception to Rooker–
Feldman. See Mains v. Citibank, N.A., 852 F.3d 669, 676 (7th Cir. 2017). Further, a court
could not award the relief she seeks without invalidating the state-court judgments—

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2184 Page 3
something only a Wisconsin appellate court or the Supreme Court of the United States
could do. Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S. at 284.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --