Cole v. Kramlinger

Background

Emma Cole brought this federal case during ongoing family-court proceedings in Wisconsin and Minnesota involving custody of her minor child. The opinion states that Jason Andrew Kramlinger is the child’s adjudicated father. Cole alleged that Kramlinger continued filing motions in Wisconsin even though, in her view, the matter had been transferred to Minnesota. She alleged a conspiracy involving Kramlinger and the other defendants and asserted claims involving false imprisonment, harassment, interstate stalking, threats to witnesses, denial of accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). She also cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and federal criminal statutes.

After filing the complaint, Cole moved to proceed without paying filing fees, sought dismissal or suspension of state-court proceedings and federal protection, requested a temporary restraining order, and filed an emergency request for federal-court intervention.

Legal standard

The court reviewed the complaint while considering Cole’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. Under the applicable statute, a court must deny that status when the underlying complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court required the complaint to allege enough facts to make a claim plausible. It stated that complaints by people representing themselves are read liberally, but they still must include sufficient supporting facts.

Immunity rulings

The court held that the State of Wisconsin was protected by the Eleventh Amendment from the asserted federal suit. It also stated that Wisconsin had not consented to a lawsuit under § 1983 and that a state is not a “person” subject to suit under that statute.

The court held that Judge Scott Needham was protected by judicial immunity. Cole appeared to argue that he lacked jurisdiction over the Wisconsin proceedings, but the court concluded that he was exercising jurisdiction over paternity, custody, and Cole’s criminal charges. The court explained that acting incorrectly within a court’s jurisdiction does not eliminate judicial immunity.

The court also held that prosecutor Karl Anderson was protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity for conduct within his prosecutorial duties. It further stated that any request for equitable relief against him was premature because Cole had not alleged that she had pursued a state appeal or lacked another available legal remedy.

Claims against the remaining defendants

For the § 1983 claims, the court stated that Cole had to allege a constitutional violation by someone acting under state authority. It found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Kramlinger or attorney Jessica Buberl jointly acted with state officials. The court found no alleged causal connection between Sally Standart and any deprivation of rights and stated that the complaint did not explain who Standart was or how she was involved. As to St. Croix County, the court held that the complaint did not allege an unconstitutional county policy or custom, which is required for this type of county liability. The court dismissed the § 1983 claims.

The court dismissed Cole’s claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 because those are federal criminal statutes that do not create a private right to sue.

The court dismissed the VAWA claims because the complaint did not explain how any defendant violated VAWA or identify the provision allegedly violated. It dismissed the ADA claims because the complaint did not identify Cole’s disability or describe the accommodation she requested. The court also noted uncertainty about whether VAWA provides a private cause of action.

As to the allegations of stalking, harassment, and threats to witnesses, the court stated that it could not investigate or prosecute criminal offenses. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law tort claims after determining that the federal claims failed. The discussion stated that such state-law claims are ordinarily dismissed without prejudice so they may be pursued in state court, but the final order dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Disposition

The court dismissed Cole’s complaint with prejudice. It denied as moot her motion concerning dismissal, abatement, and federal protection; her motion for a temporary restraining order; her emergency request for federal-court intervention; and her application to proceed without paying filing fees.