Busalacchi v. Jastroch, 2:25-cv-00387

Plaintiff Richard Busalacchi filed suit against multiple parties, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights and other constitutional and statutory claims following personal disputes and a harassment injunction related to an alleged extramarital affair with defendant Kristin Jastroch.
The Milwaukee County Circuit Court issued a four-year harassment injunction against Busalacchi and he was later convicted and served time for violating that restraining order.
Busalacchi alleged the defendants conspired to retaliate against him and deprive him of constitutional rights by obtaining the restraining order and causing his alleged false imprisonment.
Defendants moved to dismiss based on doctrines precluding federal review of state proceedings and judgments, including Rooker–Feldman, Younger abstention, and Heck v. Humphrey.
Busalacchi, after obtaining counsel, conceded that these doctrines required dismissal but argued it should be without prejudice.
The defendants responded, seeking dismissal with prejudice, and raised additional arguments based on lack of a civil cause under certain criminal statutes and Eleventh Amendment immunity for officials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Federal review of state court actions	Complaint can proceed in federal court	Barred by Rooker–Feldman, Younger, and Heck v. Humphrey	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Cause of action under federal criminal laws	Civil claims can be premised on these statutes	No private cause of action under cited criminal statutes	No civil cause of action
Immunity of state officials	Officials can be sued in official capacity	Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against state officials	Eleventh Amendment immunity applies
Dismissal with or without prejudice	Dismissal should be without prejudice	Dismissal should be with prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction and other defects	Dismissal is without prejudice to merits (for lack of jurisdiction)

Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court judgments)
D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (federal district courts cannot review state court judicial decisions)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (civil claims implying invalidity of a conviction are barred unless the conviction is overturned)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (federal courts abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings)
Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against states and state officials in their official capacities)