Ball v. Mayfield, 566 F. App'x 765

Background

James and Sarah Ball sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after Utah child-abuse investigation and state-court custody proceedings removed/conditioned custody of their daughter, J.B.
Plaintiffs asserted seven claims against: DCFS, five DCFS employees directly involved (one—Baker—was never served), two supervisory DCFS employees, and three family members (Carper Defendants) who allegedly prompted the investigation.
District court initially granted judgment on the pleadings for defendants based on Eleventh Amendment/Utah sovereign immunity and qualified immunity; dismissed Carper Defendants as not state actors.
Tenth Circuit ordered limited remand for the district court to consider Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar; district court dismissed the Balls’ claims without prejudice under Rooker-Feldman and incorporated its prior merits analysis for any claims not barred.
On appeal the Balls argued some claims were “extricable” from the state custody order (relying on PJ ex rel. Jensen), and that their factual allegations were sufficient to defeat immunity defenses.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed: Balls failed to carry burden showing Rooker-Feldman did not bar their claims (relying in part on allegations against non-parties), and alternatively the claims were deficient on the merits (qualified immunity, lack of well-pled facts, supervisory liability not shown).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rooker‑Feldman bars federal suit challenging state-court custody proceedings	Balls: some federal due‑process and substantive claims are "extricable" from the state order (like in Jensen) and thus not barred	Defendants: Balls’ claims would require review of state-court judgment; Balls rely on allegations against non-parties (Baker, DCFS) and thus fail to show claims are independent	Held: Rooker‑Feldman barred the Balls’ claims; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the merits	Balls: complaint pleads specific falsifications, supervision failures, and joint action adequate to overcome immunity	Defendants: allegations are conclusory; law not clearly established that following a facially valid state-court order is unconstitutional; qualified immunity applies	Held: Even assuming jurisdiction, Tenth Circuit would affirm qualified immunity and dismissal for failure to plausibly plead violations
Whether state sovereign immunity/Utah Governmental Immunity Act bars claims against DCFS and supervisory defendants	Balls: sought to hold supervisors and state actors liable for training/supervision/ratification	Defendants: Eleventh Amendment/Utah sovereign immunity bars official‑capacity claims and DCFS; plaintiffs failed to allege supervisors’ personal participation	Held: Sovereign immunity bars official‑capacity claims against DCFS and supervisors; supervisory liability not pleaded sufficiently
Whether Carper Defendants are state actors or entitled to immunity	Balls: Carpers conspired with state actors and should be treated as state actors	Carpers: private actors who merely reported suspected abuse; not state actors and entitled to qualified immunity for reasonable reporting	Held: Carper Defendants were not state actors; even if they were, qualified immunity would apply; claim dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes federal-court bar against appellate review of state-court judgments)
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits federal review of state-court decisions; part of Rooker‑Feldman doctrine)
D.A. Osguthorpe Family P’ship v. ASC Utah, Inc., 705 F.3d 1223 (10th Cir. 2013) (describing Rooker‑Feldman and its application)
PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2010) (allows some claims ‘extricable’ from state custody order to proceed)
Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir. 2006) (discusses claims "inextricably intertwined" with state-court judgments)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (applies Twombly standard; evaluates conclusory allegations)