Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    13 views3 pages
    1) Ali Sherkat filed a complaint in federal district court against the Johnson County District Court alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to a state court case where he was found guilty of abuse. 2) The district court dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Sherkat's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments. 3) On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Sherkat's claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment and amounted to an improper request for federal review of a state court decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-06-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-3406

    Original Title

    Sherkat v. Johnson County, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Ali Sherkat filed a complaint in federal district court against the Johnson County District Court alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to a state court case where he was found guilty of abuse. 2) The district court dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Sherkat's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments. 3) On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Sherkat's claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment and amounted to an improper request for federal review of a state court decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    13 views3 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Ali Sherkat filed a complaint in federal district court against the Johnson County District Court alleging violations of his constitutional rights related to a state court case where he was found guilty of abuse. 2) The district court dismissed the complaint, finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Sherkat's claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments. 3) On appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, agreeing that Sherkat's claims were inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment and amounted to an improper request for federal review of a state court decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    JUN 10 2003

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    ALI SHERKAT,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    JOHNSON COUNTY DISTRICT
    COURT,

    No. 02-3406
    (D. Kan.)
    (D.Ct. No. 02-CV-2487-KHV)

    Defendant-Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *


    Before SEYMOUR, MURPHY, and OBRIEN, Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
    this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    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.
    *

    Mr. Ali Sherkat, acting pro se 1, appeals the district courts sua sponte
    dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.
    Mr. Sherkat, acting pro se, brought an action against the Johnson County,
    Kansas, District Court alleging a violation of his equal protection and due process
    rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claimed the Johnson County District
    Court found him guilty of abuse without proof, took away his parenting rights,
    and jeopardized his right to appeal by failing to record the hearing. Mr. Sherkat
    requested the United States district court dismiss and/or reverse the orders of the
    Johnson County District Court and sought an award of damages, including five
    million dollars in punitive damages. Acting sua sponte, the district court
    dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the
    Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 2 Mr. Sherkat now appeals that ruling, and has filed
    two emergency motions regarding his appeal.
    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. Johnson v. Riddle, 305 F.3d
    We liberally construe his pro se pleadings. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka,
    318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003).
    1

    The doctrines name is derived from the two United States Supreme Court
    cases from which it arose: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and
    District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
    2

    -2-

    1107, 1116 (10th Cir. 2002) (citing Kiowa Indian Tribe v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163,
    1169 (10th Cir. 1998)). This doctrine not only prohibit[s] direct review of state
    judgments by lower federal courts, but it also prohibit[s] those federal courts from
    issuing any declaratory relief that is inextricably intertwined with the state court
    judgment. Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 1991) (quotation marks
    and citations omitted).
    We review a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. U.S.
    West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528
    U.S. 1106 (2000). Here, Mr. Sherkat essentially seeks a dismissal and/or reversal
    of the state court proceedings, and the constitutional claims raised and relief
    sought are inextricably intertwined with the substance and procedure of the state
    court judgment. This is precisely the type of meddling in state court affairs the
    Rooker-Feldman doctrine proscribes.
    Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district courts dismissal of Mr. Sherkats
    complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based upon the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine. Further, Mr. Sherkats two emergency motions are denied as moot.

    Entered by the Court:


    TERRENCE L. OBRIEN
    United States Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like