549 F. App'x 715
10th Cir.2013Background
- Anderson, pro se, appeals district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman.
- District court sua sponte assessed jurisdiction before service and dismissed the case.
- Anderson sought voiding of a Utah state court summary judgment, vacation of an injunction, and refund of a filing fee.
- He conceded the state court judgment was final and that relief sought resembled appellate review.
- Anderson argued an exception to Rooker-Feldman—void ab initio due to lack of state court jurisdiction.
- Court rejects the exception and holds Rooker-Feldman bars the federal action; affirmance follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the action. | Anderson argues exception to avoid bar. | District court held Rooker-Feldman controls. | Yes; Rooker-Feldman applies; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether void ab initio exception applies in this context. | Exception should apply, state lacked jurisdiction. | Exception not recognized in Tenth Circuit here. | No; exception not adopted for non-bankruptcy case. |
| Whether the petition amounted to appellate review of a state judgment. | Petition sought independent relief, not review. | Relief sought was appellate in substance. | It was appellate review; barred by Rooker-Feldman. |
Key Cases Cited
- Knox v. Bland, 632 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir. 2011) (Rooker-Feldman framework quoted)
- Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (U.S. 1994) (definition of Rooker-Feldman scope)
- Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2006) (finality requirement for R-F applicability)
- Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2009) (void ab initio exception not adopted here)
- Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005) (R-F applies when state judgment jurisdictional issue)
- Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210 (3d Cir. 2004) (bankruptcy context referenced for void ab initio)
- Schmitt v. Schmitt, 324 F.3d 484 (7th Cir. 2003) (void ab initio limitation; bankruptcy context)
- Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509 (10th Cir. 1991) (caution against circuit splits; avoid when possible)
- United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 396 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (avoid circuit splits in doctrine application)
- United States v. Games-Perez, 695 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2012) (concurring commentary on avoiding splits)