Kowalski v. Boliker
893 F.3d 987
| 7th Cir. | 2018Background
- Kowalski sued two Cook County judges (Boliker and Dickler) and Cook County sheriff/staff under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging extrajudicial communications and official misconduct that biased his divorce/custody proceedings.
- Allegations against Judge Boliker: she sent a confidential “Secret Letter” and circulated Kowalski’s photo, characterized him as a security threat, and used counsel to oppose his motion to substitute judges; she never testified or was deposed regarding these matters.
- Allegations against Judge Dickler (Presiding Judge): she responded to a request about a guardian ad litem by copying the assigned judge and parties, calling Kowalski’s letter an improper ex parte administrative request.
- Allegations against the sheriff: refusal to renew Kowalski’s courthouse attorney ID and failure to comply with a state-court subpoena duces tecum related to Boliker, which Kowalski says aided judicial bias.
- District court dismissed the complaint (without prejudice) on grounds including judicial immunity, witness/immunity for judicial communications, lack of property/liberty interest in the ID, Rooker–Feldman, and the domestic-relations exception; Seventh Circuit reviews de novo and ultimately AFFIRMED but converted dismissal to with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction/finality of dismissal | District court’s dismissal without prejudice prevents appeal | Dismissal ends the suit for district court and is reviewable when no amendment could cure defects | Court treated dismissal as functionally final and appellate jurisdiction exists |
| Rooker–Feldman bar | Claims arise from state-court proceedings; Rooker–Feldman applies | Rooker–Feldman bars only federal review of state-court judgments and not interlocutory orders or collateral tort claims | Rooker–Feldman does not bar this suit; plaintiff does not seek to overturn state judgments |
| Domestic-relations/probate exception | Case arises from divorce/custody and should be dismissed from federal court | Claims seek in personam relief for tortious interference, not to modify custody or probate res | Domestic-relations exception does not bar the suit because it seeks in personam relief and does not require altering state court orders |
| Judicial/witness immunity for judges | Boliker’s and Dickler’s communications are protected by absolute judicial (or witness) immunity | Judges: actions either within judicial duties (Dickler) or outside jurisdiction/non-judicial (Boliker); witness immunity applies only to sworn testimony | Dickler immune (judicial acts); Boliker not entitled to judicial immunity (acted outside jurisdiction and non-judicial) and cannot claim witness immunity for unsworn/irregular submissions; however, plaintiff’s §1983/§1985 claims fail on the merits and dismissal is affirmed (modified to with prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity covers judicial acts unless in clear absence of jurisdiction)
- Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219 (distinguishes judicial acts from administrative/nonjudicial functions)
- Dellenbach v. Letsinger, 889 F.2d 755 (control of court docket is within judicial functions; context for jurisdictional inquiry)
- Barrett v. Harrington, 130 F.3d 246 (judge’s letter to prosecutors immunized where action tied to adjudicatory role and response to litigant harassment)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (limits Rooker–Feldman to federal-court review of state-court judgments)
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (domestic-relations exception scope: narrow and focused on in rem divorce/custody orders)
- Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (tort claims seeking in personam relief generally not barred by probate/procedure exceptions)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (§ 1985(3) requires class-based, invidious discriminatory animus)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (foundational Rooker principle limiting federal review of state-court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (clarifies Rooker–Feldman doctrine applicability)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (parental custody recognized as a protected liberty interest for due-process analysis)