Cruz-Perez, Leia v. Baker, Patricia et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
LEIA MARIE CRUZ-PEREZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
JUDGE PATRICIA BAKER, SHEILA KESSLER,
CORPORATION COUNSEL, ERIN GREGORIO,
WENDY AXT, STEPHANIE BAUTISTA, TERESA
KOVAK, CRAIG SANKEY, LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS, and CHILD SUPPORT AND COURT
STAFF,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-620-wmc
Plaintiff Leia Marie Cruz-Perez, who is representing herself, filed this lawsuit pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that various court, law enforcement, and Child Protective Services
(“CPS”) 	officials 	in 	Portage 	County, 	Wisconsin, 	violated 	her 	constitutional 	rights 	in
conjunction with the removal of her daughter from her custody in 2019 and 2025. The court
dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failing to meet the pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 and gave her an opportunity to add more details about the incidents in question.
(Dkt. #8.) Now plaintiff has filed two additional complaints that add a litany of allegations
against the previously-named defendants, as well as numerous new defendants, who include
her criminal defense attorneys. (Dkt. ##9-10.) As it did with plaintiff’s initial complaint, the
court must screen plaintiff’s amended complaints and dismiss any portion that is legally
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money
damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). 	The court accepts plaintiff’s allegations as true and construes them
generously, holding her pro se complaint to a less stringent standard than one a lawyer drafts.
Case: 3:25-cv-00620-wmc Document #: 11 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 1 of 4

2
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). 	Having reviewed plaintiff’s additional
allegations and electronic court records under this standard, this court concludes that it must
abstain from exercising jurisdiction over any of plaintiff’s proposed claims under Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 	Therefore, this case will be closed and stayed pending the
resolution of plaintiff’s criminal charges, after which plaintiff can move to reopen the case.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT1
Plaintiff Leia Marie Cruz-Perez, who is a resident of Stevens Point, Wisconsin, is the
biological mother and legal custodian of A.M., who was removed from plaintiff’s custody
allegedly without a valid order on July 9, 2019, and again on July 25, 2025. Publicly available
court records accessed online now reveal that plaintiff is facing a variety of felony and
misdemeanor charges, including interference with child custody, stalking, possession of illegal
substances, and bail jumping, with a trial yet to be scheduled. 	See, e.g., State v. Cruz-Perez,
Portage Cnty. Case Nos. 2025CF330 (filed Jul. 28, 2025), 2025CF325 (filed Jul. 25, 2025),
2025CF264 (filed Jul. 14, 2025), and 2024CM201 (filed Jun. 25, 2024).
OPINION
Plaintiff contends that law enforcement, CPS workers, prosecutors, judges, and other
state court staff violated her constitutional rights by manipulating records and taking a variety
of actions between July 2019 and July 2025, which led to her arrest and the removal of A.M.
from her custody without a valid order. However, this court cannot consider her claims because
1 Unless otherwise indicated, the allegations of fact in plaintiff’s first and second amended
complaints (dkt. ##9-10) are taken as true for purposes of screening.
Case: 3:25-cv-00620-wmc Document #: 11 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 2 of 4

3
they are all intertwined with her ongoing state-court criminal cases. 2 	Absent extraordinary
circumstances not present here, federal courts must abstain from deciding a claim when doing
so would interfere with a state’s pending criminal prosecution. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44.
Because plaintiff’s claims, which generally concern the alleged fabrication of evidence and her
alleged false arrest and prosecution, would unduly interfere with her criminal proceedings, see
Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013), this court must abstain from deciding
these claims until those proceedings have ended. However, plaintiff may raise her objections
to the ongoing court proceedings in state circuit court or the state appellate courts, as
appropriate.
Accordingly, the court will stay this case and direct the clerk of court to close it. Plaintiff
may move to reopen this case after the conclusion of the state criminal proceedings, including
all appeals and any relevant state collateral review proceedings. See Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d
134, 139 (7th Cir. 1995). However, if plaintiff’s criminal cases result in a conviction, she may
not be able to proceed with all of her claims in this case, as this court will have to dismiss any
claims for which a judgment in her favor would imply the invalidity of a state conviction. See
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
2 Even if plaintiff did not have ongoing state-court proceedings, as this court explained in its
previous order, many of these officials are immune for their official actions, so plaintiff would not
be able to bring claims against these individuals. 	See, e.g., Archer v. Chisholm, 870 F.3d 603, 612
(7th Cir. 2017) (prosecutors); Dawson v. Newman, 419 F.3d 656, 660–61 (7th Cir. 2005) (judges);
Schneider v. Cnty. of Will, 366 Fed. App’x 683, 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (nonjudicial court staff
performing ministerial acts related to judicial proceedings). 	In addition, the domestic relations
exception to federal jurisdiction would prevent this court from exercising jurisdiction over matters
involving child custody and the imposition and collection of child support, which are governed by
state law and must be litigated in state court. See Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 625 (1987); Friedlander
v. Friedlander, 149 F.3d 739, 740 (7th Cir. 1998).
Case: 3:25-cv-00620-wmc Document #: 11 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 3 of 4

4
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	The court ABSTAINS from exercising jurisdiction, pursuant to Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), pending final resolution of plaintiff Leia Marie Cruz-Perez’s
state criminal proceedings.
2. 	This case is STAYED, and the clerk of court is directed to close the case.
3. 	Plaintiff must move to lift the stay within 60 days after the conclusion of her
criminal proceedings, including any direct appeal. If plaintiff fails to comply with
this order, the case will remain closed, and plaintiff may be barred by the statute of
limitations from bringing her federal claims in any future case.
Entered this 29th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_____________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00620-wmc Document #: 11 Filed: 01/29/26 Page 4 of 4