Liu, Wenfang v. Soehner, Russell
3:15-cv-00385
| W.D. Wis. | Mar 2, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Liu WenFang alleges Russell Soehner sexually assaulted her (Sept. 8, 2014) and later made false accusations that led to a temporary restraining order against her.
- Liu originally filed suit in W.D. Wis. (15-cv-385) but the court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no federal question; both parties domiciled in Wisconsin).
- Liu appealed but the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the filing fee. She then filed multiple proposed amended complaints and opened a new docket (15-cv-669) repeating and expanding allegations.
- Liu clarified she is a U.S. permanent resident living in Wisconsin and sought to add claims against a friend (Gary Scott), local police officers, a state court judge, and a prosecutor.
- The court held Liu’s residency does not establish diversity jurisdiction; her proposed claims did not state federal constitutional violations and/or were barred by immunity or procedural doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction via diversity | Liu asserts she is not a Wisconsin citizen but a permanent resident, so diversity exists | Defendants and court: Liu is domiciled in Wisconsin; permanent resident status does not create diversity against citizens of same State | Denied — 28 U.S.C. § 1332 bars jurisdiction where a lawful permanent resident domiciled in the same State is involved |
| Federal-question jurisdiction for state actors (police, judge) | Liu alleges police/judge mishandled investigation, recorded false statements, and should have prosecuted Soehner, raising federal claims | Defendants: Allegations do not allege violation of federal constitutional rights; claims concern state-law police/prosecutorial discretion | Denied — allegations insufficient to state federal constitutional claims |
| Suit against state judge for issuing TRO | Liu contends the judge’s issuance of a TRO injured her and is reviewable in federal court | Defendants: Judge is protected by absolute judicial immunity; federal courts may not review state-court judgments under Rooker–Feldman | Denied — absolute judicial immunity and Rooker–Feldman bar relief in federal court |
| Claims against prosecutor for not pursuing charges | Liu argues prosecutor should have prosecuted Soehner | Defendants: Prosecutor has absolute immunity for prosecutorial discretion | Denied — prosecutor immune from suit for exercise of charging discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (judicial immunity protects judges from suits for actions taken in their judicial capacity)
- Abdella v. Catlin, 79 Wis. 2d 270, 255 N.W.2d 516 (1977) (Wisconsin recognition of judicial immunity)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker–Feldman doctrine limits lower federal court review of state-court judgments)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (Rooker–Feldman principles regarding federal review of state-court decisions)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (origin of prohibition on federal review of state-court judgments)
- Golden v. Helen Sigman & Assoc., Ltd., 611 F.3d 356 (7th Cir. 2010) (explaining Rooker–Feldman limits and proper state-court avenues for relief)
- Thomas v. City of Peoria, 580 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2009) (prosecutorial immunity for charging decisions)
- Reed v. City of Chicago, 77 F.3d 1049 (7th Cir. 1996) (police do not control prosecutorial charging decisions; recording false statements by private parties does not alone create state action)