David McNamara filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against various Wisconsin officials, including two judges, a prosecuting attorney, child-support employees, and a former Governor and Attorney General. McNamara alleged unfair court proceedings stemming from his failure to make child-support payments. The district court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. The district court explained that claims against the judges and prosecutor were barred by absolute immunity, claims regarding conduct in the 1990s were barred by the six-year statute of limitations, claims concerning prior convictions were barred by Heck v. Humphrey, and claims regarding ongoing criminal proceedings were subject to Younger abstention. McNamara then appealed this dismissal to the Seventh Circuit.
The Seventh Circuit addressed the appeal on procedural grounds, noting that McNamara failed to comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a). While the court is mindful of the appellant's pro se status, it reiterated that pro se litigants must still present legal arguments explaining why the district court's decision was incorrect. McNamara's brief recited facts about his child-support proceedings and alleged disability but did not engage with the district court's specific legal rationales regarding immunity, the statute of limitations, Heck v. Humphrey, or Younger abstention. The court cited Sullers v. Int'l Union Elevator Constructors and Anderson v. Hardman to emphasize that an appellant cannot merely recite facts without developing an argument contesting the lower court's rationale. Because McNamara did not present any ground for reversal, the court dismissed the appeal without addressing the merits of the underlying immunity or abstention issues.
The dismissal of the appeal leaves the district court's judgment in place, meaning McNamara's Section 1983 claims remain barred by absolute immunity, the statute of limitations, Heck v. Humphrey, and Younger abstention. The decision reinforces the requirement that even pro se appellants must file briefs that specifically address the legal errors alleged in the lower court's ruling. No remand instructions were issued as the appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download