Stadler, Justice v. Schoone, Aaron et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JUSTICE SCOTT STADLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
AARON SCHOONE, SHEILA YOHNK,
and TANNER H.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
25-cv-995-jdp
Plaintiff Justice Scott Stadler, proceeding without counsel, is currently confined at the
Chippewa County Jail. Stadler alleges that he was arrested without a valid reason and that
officials are pursuing fraudulent criminal charges against him. The court has already concluded
that Stadler may proceed without prepaying any portion of the filing fee.
The next step is for me to screen Stadler’s complaint 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 and 1915A. In doing so, I must accept his allegations as true and construe the
complaint generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011). I conclude that I must abstain
from exercising jurisdiction over Stadler’s claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
I will stay the case and direct the clerk of court to close it. Stadler can move to reopen the case
after his criminal charges are resolved.
Case: 3:25-cv-00995-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
On February 28, 2024, Stalder was arrested by defendant Chippewa County sheriff’s
deputies Aaron Schoone and Tanner H. without a valid reason. Stadler’s allegations are
somewhat difficult to understand, but I take him to be saying that they arrested him without
a valid, signed Department of Corrections warrant regarding a probation violation. They then
conducted a warrantless search in which they recovered a substance that they incorrectly claim
to be methamphetamine. Defendant district attorney Sheila Yohnk charged him with
possession of methamphetamine despite knowing about the illegal search and seizure.
Defendants presented police reports that fabricated at least part of the events.
ANALYSIS
Stadler contends that defendants violated his constitutional rights by seizing him and
searching his property without a valid reason, by charging him with possession of a drug that
he did not have, and by fabricating evidence. But I cannot consider Stadler’s claims because
they are intertwined with his ongoing state-court criminal case. Electronic state court records
show that Stadler currently faces charges regarding this incident, with a trial yet to be
scheduled. See State v. Stadler, Chippewa County Case No. 2024CF178.
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. Stadler’s claims about his allegedly false arrest and malicious
prosecution would unduly interfere with his criminal proceedings. See Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711
F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013). So I must abstain from deciding these claims until those
proceedings have ended.
Case: 3:25-cv-00995-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
I will stay this case and direct the clerk of court to close it. That means that Stadler 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). But if Stadler’s criminal case results in a conviction, he may not be able
to proceed with all his claims in this case; I will have to dismiss any claims for which a judgment
in his favor would imply the invalidity of a state conviction. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486–87 (1994).
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. 	The court will abstain from exercising jurisdiction, pursuant to Younger v. Harris,
401 	U.S. 	37 	(1971), 	pending 	final 	resolution 	of 	plaintiff’s 	state 	criminal
proceedings.
2. 	This case is STAYED. 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 his 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 his federal claims in any future case.
Entered January 13, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-00995-jdp Document #: 9 Filed: 01/13/26 Page 3 of 3