Huiras v. Cafferty

• Decision Date: 23 February 2023
• Docket Number: 22-cv-1109-pp
• Parties: NATHAN JOHN HUIRAS, Plaintiff, v. KRISTIN CAFFERTY, JESSICA ANNE GRUNDBERG, NICOLE HUIRAS and RACINE COUNTY, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin

NATHAN JOHN HUIRAS, Plaintiff, v. KRISTIN CAFFERTY, JESSICA ANNE GRUNDBERG, NICOLE HUIRAS and RACINE COUNTY, Defendants.

No. 22-cv-1109-pp

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

February 23, 2023

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS (DKT. NOS. 3, 26, 28), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DKT. NO 15), DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS GRUNDBERG AND HUIRAS'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES (DKT. NO. 17), DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY CASE (DKT. NO. 38) AND DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

HON PAMELA PEPPER, Chief United States District Judge.

On September 23, 2022, the plaintiff-representing himself-filed a complaint alleging “False Arrest and False Imprisonment without Probable Cause” against defendants Kristin Cafferty and Racine County, and “Using Meritless and Misrepresenting Claims to Deprive [Him] of Constitutional Rights under the Color of State Law” against defendants Jessica Grundberg and Nicole Huiras.^[1] Dkt. No. 1 at 6-7. The plaintiff sues under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Id. at 2, 6-7. The allegations in the complaint relate to a divorce and custody case in Wisconsin state court (Racine County Case No. 2021FA000592). The plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in the form of a request that the court dismiss the state court case. Dkt. No 15. The four defendants all have filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Dkt. Nos. 3, 26, 28. Defendants Grundberg and Huiras filed a motion for attorney's fees. Dkt. No. 17.

I. Procedural History

On September 23, 2022, the plaintiff filed the complaint. Dkt. No. 1. On October 7, 2022, defendants Jessica Grundberg and Nicole Huiras filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 41(b), dkt. no. 3, along with a supporting brief, dkt. no. 4. The plaintiff filed an objection to the motion, dkt. no. 9, and Grundberg and Huiras filed a reply brief, dkt. no. 12.

On October 20, 2022, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, asking the court “to DISMISS the underlying action contained in Wisconsin Case 2021FA000592 in Racine County.” Dkt. No. 15. The plaintiff stated that “[t]his injunction would make all orders made by the underlying action null and void as most of them are an obvious violation of [his] constitutional rights.” Id. The plaintiff asserts that “[i]f the underlying action is not dismissed, [he] will undoubtedly suffer further irreparable injury” because “[t]hey will continue to threaten to put [him] in jail every time [he] question[s] a ‘temporary' and unlawful court order that violates [his] fundamental liberty interests.” Dkt. No. 16 at 3.

On October 24, 2022, defendants Grundberg and Huiras filed a motion for attorney's fees. Dkt. No. 17. On November 7, 2022, defendant Racine County filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 26. On November 10, 2022, defendant Kristin Cafferty filed a combined motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and response to the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, dkt. no. 28, and a supporting brief, dkt. no. 29. The plaintiff opposed the two motions to dismiss, dkt. nos. 33, 34, and the defendants filed reply briefs, dkt. nos. 35, 36. The plaintiff then filed an opposition to those reply briefs. Dkt. No. 37.

On January 4, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion to stay the case “pending a final decision on Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case 2022AP001731 . . . titled . . . ‘In re the finding of contempt in: In re the marriage of: Nicole Huiras, Petitioner-Respondent v Nathan Huiras, Respondent-Appellant.'” Dkt. No. 38. Grundberg and Huiras opposed that motion, dkt. no. 39, and the plaintiff filed a reply brief in support, dkt. no. 41.

II. Complaint

The plaintiff has named as defendants Judge Kristin Cafferty (whom he describes as “a Title IV-D contractor official of family cases in Racine County”), Nicole Huiras (the mother of the plaintiff's children and the petitioner in the state court case), Jessica Grundberg (Nicole Huiras's attorney in the state court case) and Racine County. Dkt. No. 1. The plaintiff's claims relate to Racine County Case No. 2021FA000592. Id. at 1. In his “Statement of Claim,” the plaintiff asserts that he was “wrongfully imprisoned under the Color of State of Wisconsin Law on a meritless and misrepresenting claim made by Nicole Huiras and Jessica Grundberg in sworn and signed affidavits.” Id. The plaintiff alleges that Judge Cafferty “convicted [him] of ‘nonsummary' contempt . . . and sentenced [him] ¶ 30 days in the Racine County Jail within minutes after the conviction.” Id. The plaintiff contends:

I was accused of a “nonsummary” contempt with the criminal element of harassment in the accusation. I was charged and convicted to a triable fact with no trial, and sentenced to 30 days in jail with no purge conditions without any opportunity to provide witnesses for testimony. I was not allowed to testify and admit evidence to support my defense. It was only a last-minute plea by myself with the judge where she put a $1500 purge condition on the contempt charge because I insisted with Kristin Cafferty that she must have purge conditions according to the law.

Id.

The plaintiff goes on to allege that he was “falsely imprisoned on September 21^st, 2022 where it took 8 hours to process the purge on an electronically signed court order for jail custody.” Id. The complaint questions why it took “8 hours for a signed court order to get to the jail for [the plaintiff] to sign a bond and pay $1500 to leave the jail[.]” Id. He asserts that his First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated:

My constitutional rights to free speech have been violated. I have 1^st amendment right to say that I am going to petition the courts to whoever I want to say that to and it is not a crime. My 8^th amendment constitutional rights have been violated with this cruel and unusual punishment and unnecessary fines and fees. My 5^th and 14^th amendment rights to due process were violated with there being no trial for a triable fact. Also, my 6^th amendment right to a jury trial was violated. And finally my 4^th amendment right to be secure in my medical privacy has been violated.

Id. at 1-2. The plaintiff brings these claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Id. at 2.

The complaint asserts a series of facts. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-5. The plaintiff states that on July 15, 2021, the state-court case was opened when defendants “Nicole Huiras and Jessica Grundberg petitioned to remove custody and care from [him] and [his] biological offspring without clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 3. The plaintiff contends that since the state case was opened, he has “made several peaceful attempts with Nicole Huiras to see [his] children and was denied all attempts by the mother except if [he] were to drive over one hour to Illinois and see [his] children I [sic] the hostile environment of her parent's home.” Id. at 4. The plaintiff states that “[d]uring these ‘supervised' visits [Nicole Huiras] and her parents would harass [him] with a cell phone camera and Nicole Huiras sat there with a notebook taking notes of everything [he] was doing to antagonize” him. Id.

The plaintiff asserts that “[o]n August 26, 2021 all custody and care between the plaintiff and his biological offspring were taken away without any clear and convincing evidence” and that “[n]o specific findings of fact were made by Racine County.” Id. The plaintiff states that “[s]ince Wisconsin Case 2021FA00592 was opened [he] filed several motions in an attempt to increase placement of [his] children” but that all of these attempts “were denied by Kristin Cafferty for no evidentiary reason.” Id. The plaintiff argues that Judge Cafferty merely “stated that ‘The allegations are too powerful for me to modify placement'” and that Judge Cafferty “found no specific finding of fact as to why [the plaintiff] lost care and custody of [his] children.” Id.

The plaintiff describes a “color of law violation” he served upon all parties involved in the state court case:

On or near February 14^th, 2022 my process server legally and peacefully served all parties to the case including Kristin Cafferty a Color of Law Violation. I simply asked the parties to stop violating my constitutional rights under the color of state law. The parties of this case alleged that the act of legal process service was harassment and they filed for restraining orders.

On February 16^th, 2022 I asked Kristin Cafferty to put her wet ink signature on the color of law violation documents. Kristin Cafferty refused to sign the documents legally served upon her.

Dkt. No. 1 at 4.

The plaintiff states that on or near February 16, 2022, “all child contact was removed between [him] and [his] children for no evidentiary reason” and that “[t]he contents of the order signed by Kristin Cafferty state no specific findings of fact as to why [he] lost child contact.” Id. The plaintiff asserts that Judge Cafferty only stated the following “in the order proposed by Jessica Grundberg”:

“The temporary order on contact and placement is modified as follows. Respondent's contact with the minor children and his supervised placement with the minor children are suspended until further order of the Court..”

“..Respondent is warned that failure to follow Court orders, including failure to undergo the previously ordered psychological evaluation with Dr. Alison Kravit, could result in a finding of contempt. The hearing on the Motion(s) for Contempt is scheduled for March 1, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. Respondent agreed to accept service of the contempt motion(s) via e-filing and U.S. Mail.”

Id. (italics omitted).

The plaintiff avers that ...