Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Neilson v. Memmott, 10th Cir. (1999)
Neilson v. Memmott, 10th Cir. (1999)
NOV 12 1999
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
DICK NEILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JON M. MEMMOTT, individually and
in his capacity as Second Judicial
District Court Judge; STEPHEN
NEBEKER; RICK ROSE; WILLIAM
A. MARSHALL; ROSANNE KRAUS,
individually and as Custodian of
Records - Camarillo State Hospital;
NIKKI BATRES, individually and as
Custodian of Records - Patton State
Hospital; VIRGINIA PADGETT,
individually and as Custodian of
Records - Atascadero State Hospital;
WHITE MEMORIAL CENTER,
Custodian of Records;
ATASCADERO STATE HOSPITAL,
Custodian of Records; THE STATE
OF UTAH,
No. 98-4229
(D.C. No. 95-CV-755)
(D. Utah)
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination
of this appeal.
finding no personal jurisdiction and, alternatively, that it was not a state actor;
and granted defendants Kraus, Batres, and Padgetts motion to dismiss, finding
that they were entitled to qualified immunity. No party raised a question
regarding the district courts jurisdiction, and it did not discuss its jurisdiction.
As a threshold matter before reviewing the merits of the district courts
action, we have a duty to examine our own jurisdiction.
re American Ready Mix, Inc.) , 14 F.3d 1497, 1499 (10th Cir. 1994)
. Further, a
party may challenge subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.
Oklahoma City Assocs. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
See
1991). Because we hold that the district court had no jurisdiction, we must
dismiss this appeal and remand the case to the district court with instructions to
vacate its judgment and dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits the district courts consideration of
plaintiffs amended complaint.
486 (1983) . The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a party losing in state court . . .
from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment
in a United States district court, based on the losing partys claim that the state
judgment itself violates the losers federal rights.
-3-
Johnson v. De Grandy ,
512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994)). Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction
over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial
proceedings even if those challenges allege that the state courts action was
unconstitutional.
Van Sickle v. Holloway , 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 (10th Cir. 1986)
sought only to harass and embarrass him. The state court held a hearing on the
motion, and, after hearing plaintiffs arguments against the issuance of the
subpoenas, denied the motion to quash.
Plaintiffs request that the district court set aside the state court judgment is
beyond the district courts jurisdiction.
relief plaintiff requested from the district court are inextricably intertwined with
the state courts denial of plaintiffs motion to quash the subpoenas. The district
court could not have considered any of plaintiffs claims or granted any of the
requested relief without, in effect, reviewing the state courts decision to allow
the subpoenas to issue.
has in essence asked the district court to review the final decision of the state
court on the issuance and validity of the subpoenas. Because the district court
was without jurisdiction to perform such review, we DISMISS the appeal and
REMAND the case to the district court with instructions to vacate its judgment
and dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction.
Entered for the Court
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-5-