Slottke v. State of Wisconsin Department of Industry Labor and Human Relations, 2:16-cv-01392

Pro se plaintiff filed suit alleging state-law harms (fraud, defamation, blackmail, grand theft auto, deprivation of workers’ compensation/medical treatment, and separation of church and state violations) arising from incidents beginning in 1991; sought $126.75 million and various injunctions and fines against defendants (State DWD, Thomas Harrington, Fireman’s Fund).
Defendants Fireman’s Fund and Harrington moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); argued claims are state-law torts barred by statutes of limitations. Their briefs did not analyze federal jurisdiction.
DWD moved to dismiss asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity, statutes of limitation, and Rooker–Feldman; it likewise did not establish federal jurisdiction.
The court, sua sponte, evaluated subject-matter jurisdiction given pro se status and the liberal-construction requirement for pleadings.
Court concluded plaintiff’s allegations could not reasonably be construed as arising under federal law against Harrington or the DWD; complete diversity was lacking because at least one defendant (Harrington) shared Wisconsin citizenship with the plaintiff.
Court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to reach the motions on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has federal-question jurisdiction	Plaintiff alleged constitutional violations (e.g., separation of church and state) and manipulation of federal/state adjudicators	Defendants characterized claims as state-law torts and did not assert a federal-question basis	No federal-question jurisdiction: allegations do not state claims arising under federal law
Whether the court has diversity jurisdiction	Plaintiff sought >$75,000 and sued parties in different states	Defendants noted local defendants (Harrington, DWD) are Wisconsin residents, undermining complete diversity	No diversity jurisdiction: complete diversity lacking because Harrington and plaintiff are Wisconsin citizens
Whether the court may consider merits of pending dismissal motions	Plaintiff sought hearings and relief on substantive claims	Defendants sought dismissal on substantive grounds (statutes of limitations, immunity)	Court may not reach merits because it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; all pending motions not decided on merits
Proper disposition when subject-matter jurisdiction lacking	Plaintiff implicitly requested relief in federal court	Defendants moved to dismiss but did not resolve jurisdictional defect	Case dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction

Craig v. Ontario Corp., 543 F.3d 872 (7th Cir. 2008) (court may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (U.S. 2005) (complete diversity requirement explained)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (pro se complaints entitled to liberal construction)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (standard for dismissing pro se pleadings for failure to state a claim)
Marshall v. Knight, 445 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 2006) (counsel on liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
State of Ill. v. City of Chicago, 137 F.3d 474 (7th Cir. 1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction is threshold and nonwaivable)
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1947) (First Amendment "wall between church and state" concept)
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (U.S. 1923) (precludes lower federal courts from reviewing state court judgments)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (limits on federal review of state-court adjudications)
Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 467 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2006) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is without prejudice)