NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted August 30, 2018*
Decided September 20, 2018
By the Court:
No. 18‐1339
BRIAN M. BURMASTER, Appeal from the United States District
Plaintiff‐Appellant, Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
v. No. 17‐CV‐1675
STEPHEN J. HERMAN, et al., Nancy Joseph,
Defendants‐Appellees. Magistrate Judge.
O R D E R
Brian Burmaster brought this civil‐rights suit in Wisconsin, alleging that
Louisiana lawyer Steve Herman and his law firm “manufactured” a criminal complaint
against him resulting in his arrest and two years’ detention in Louisiana before the
charges were dropped. The defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds, including
a lack of personal jurisdiction. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2). A magistrate judge presiding
by consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), dismissed Burmaster’s complaint for failing to state a
claim. Alternatively, she dismissed the suit as legally frivolous because “Burmaster asks
for relief this court cannot grant.” See id. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii).
On appeal Burmaster challenges the judge’s alternative ruling that his suit is
frivolous. But regardless of whether the complaint had a valid legal or factual basis, the
record conclusively shows that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the
defendants. General personal jurisdiction exists where the defendants are “at home” in
* We agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
No. 18‐1339 Page 2
the forum state, and specific personal jurisdiction depends on the lawsuit arising out of
or relating to the defendants’ contacts with the forum. See Bristol‐Myers Squibb Co. v.
Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773, 1779–80 (2017). Burmaster has not alleged that Herman is
domiciled in Wisconsin and that his law firm is “at home” there; indeed, the defendants
maintain without objection that they are at home in Louisiana. Nor has Burmaster
alleged that this suit arises out of or relates to the defendants’ contacts with Wisconsin.
The only relationship this suit has with Wisconsin is that Burmaster is domiciled there,
but the plaintiff’s contacts with the forum do not establish that forum’s jurisdiction over
the defendants. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284–85 (2014).
Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it should not have gone on to consider
whether Burmaster’s complaint stated a claim, and we need not assess whether the suit
is frivolous. See Sinochem Intʹl Co. v. Malaysia Intʹl Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430–31
(2007); Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wis., 836 F.3d 818, 823 (7th Cir. 2016), cert.
denied, 137 S. Ct. 1331 (2017).
The judgment of the district court is MODIFIED to show that the suit is
dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. As modified, the
judgment is AFFIRMED.