Duerr, Shaun, et al v. Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
SHAUN P. DUERR, individually and as
next friend of N.D., a minor,
Plaintiffs, OPINION AND ORDER
v.
25-cv-1071-wmc
WISCONSIN OFFICE OF LAWYER REGULATION,
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FRANCIS SULLIVAN and
INTAKE COORDINATOR EMMA BABLER,
Defendants.
This is the second case, out of three, that plaintiff Shaun Duerr filed arising out of a
divorce and child custody dispute pending in state court. In re the marriage of Elizabeth Duerr
and Shaun Duerr, 2020FA71 (Rusk Cty. Cir. Ct.). The court dismissed plaintiff’s first case,
which he had filed against a Wisconsin judge, a guardian ad litem and his ex-wife, based on
abstention principles. Duerr v. Barna, 25-cv-957-wmc (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2026) (dkt. #16).
In this case, plaintiff is suing the Wisconsin Office of Lawyer Regulation (“OLR”), OLR’s
Deputy Director, Francis Sullivan, and OLR’s intake coordinator, Emma Babler, based on their
dismissal of the complaints he filed about the guardian ad litem involved in the state divorce
and custody case, Bryce Schoenborn. Plaintiff claims that OLR’s dismissal of his complaints
violated his and his child’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA), and Rehabilitation Act. He seeks monetary, injunctive and declaratory relief.
Plaintiff has paid the full filing fee for this action, so the complaint does not have to be
screened under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. However, the court has the
inherent authority to screen the case on its own. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 490 U.S. 296,
307–08 (1989) (in forma pauperis statute “authorizes courts to dismiss a ‘frivolous or malicious’
Case: 3:25-cv-01071-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/28/26 Page 1 of 4

2
action, but there is little doubt they would have power to do so even in the absence of this
statutory provision”); Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999) (“district courts have
the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non prisoners alike,
regardless of fee status.”). Here, the court directed the clerk of court to withhold service until
the court has completed review of the complaint.
On review, the court accepts plaintiff’s allegations as true and construes them
generously, holding the complaint to a less stringent standard than one a lawyer drafts. Arnett
v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). Even under this lenient standard, however, this
case too, must be dismissed, because plaintiff’s allegations fail to state a federal claim upon
which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff’s allegations do not state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because his
allegations do not support any claim for violation of a right protected by the U.S. Constitution
or federal laws. See Cruz v. Safford, 579 F.3d 840, 843 (7th Cir. 2009) (setting forth elements
of a § 1983 claim). Plaintiff contends that OLR’s handling of his complaints about guardian
ad litem Schoenborn violated his constitutional rights to due process and access to a
“functioning state forum,” but his allegations support neither claim. To establish a procedural
due process violation, a plaintiff must show, at minimum, that he was deprived of liberty or
property without receiving notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the
deprivation. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985). But given the level
of discretion afforded to OLR under Wisconsin law, see Wis. SCR 22.02, plaintiff has no
federally protected liberty or property interest in OLR’s handling of his administrative
complaints. See Beckman v. Samuelson, No. 24-CV-307-WMC, 2025 WL 977602, at *2 (W.D.
Wis. Mar. 21, 2025) (no constitutional entitlement to judicial review following OLR complaint
Case: 3:25-cv-01071-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/28/26 Page 2 of 4

3
process); Chapman v. Sellen, No. 05C0015, 2005 WL 1629897 (E.D. Wis. July 5, 2005)
(holding that plaintiff did not have a property interest in OLR review following closure of a
grievance); Fochtman v. Van Hollen, 2021 WL 5881973, *3 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 13, 2021) (holding
that discretion in the review process set out by SCR 22.02 did “not support a conclusion that
plaintiff had a federal protected interest in” the handling or review of his OLR complaint).
As for his access to a “functioning state forum,” “[t]he rights to speak, associate, and
petition do not require government policymakers to listen or respond to individuals’
communications on public issues. So, while the government may not interfere with the right
to petition, it need not grant the petition, no matter how meritorious it is.” Shipley v. Chicago
Bd. of Election Commissioners, 947 F.3d 1056, 1063 (7th Cir. 2020) (internal citations and
quotations omitted). Here, plaintiff’s allegations show that he was able to petition the
government -- specifically, he filed a grievance with OLR and, when that was dismissed, he was
given instructions on how to appeal to OLR's director. These allegations do not show that he
was prohibited from petitioning the government. See Beckman, No. 24-CV-307-WMC, 2025
WL 977602, at *2 (OLR review process did not violate First Amendment right to petition
government).
Plaintiff’s allegations also do not state any claim under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.
He says that he is bringing claims under Title II of the ADA, under which qualified individuals
with disabilities may not, “by reason of . . . disability, be excluded from participation in or be
denied the benefits of the services, programs or activities of a public entity.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12132. The Rehabilitation Act provides similar protections and scope. But plaintiff’s
allegations do not suggest that OLR or the individual defendants excluded plaintiff or denied
him any benefits because of a disability.
Case: 3:25-cv-01071-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/28/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Finally, the court notes that, as with plaintiff’s previous case arising out of the state
court divorce and custody dispute, Duerr v. Barna, 25-cv-957-wmc, this case raises federalism
and comity concerns because plaintiff is seeking a federal court ruling that would undermine
rulings made in state court already. As explained to plaintiff, when a plaintiff seeks to “to
receive a favorable federal constitutional ruling that can be used affirmatively or offensively to
shape—or perhaps change—the direction and course of the state court proceedings,” the federal
court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the case. See J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d
714, 721–23 (7th Cir. 2021).
For all of these reasons, the court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. Because the court
has no basis to infer that plaintiff could amend his complaint to save it from dismissal, the
court will not offer him the opportunity to amend. See Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343,
346 (7th Cir. 2015) (“[T]he court should grant leave to amend after dismissal of the first
complaint unless it is certain from the face of the complaint that any amendment would be
futile or otherwise unwarranted.”) (emphasis original and citation and quotation marks
omitted).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Shaun Duerr’s complaint is DISMISSED on abstention
grounds and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The clerk of court
is directed to enter judgment and close this case.
Entered this 28th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
_______________________________
WILLIAM M. CONLEY
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-01071-wmc Document #: 4 Filed: 01/28/26 Page 4 of 4