Cook v. Baca
512 F. App'x 810
10th Cir.2013Background
- Cook, pro se, appeals district court dismissal of his first amended complaint (FAC) for failure to state a claim; district court dismissed with prejudice most federal claims and left state-law claims to be dismissed or remanded; appellate panel remands part of the dismissal to be without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; case involves a long bankruptcy/settlement dispute with Wells Fargo and related entities; FAC alleged conspiracies, civil rights deprivations, and securities-law claims linked to a 2001 settlement and subsequent litigation in bankruptcy and state court; Judge Baca’s state-court actions and Wells Fargo’s alleged interference are central to the claims; BAP decision found Cook lacked standing to sue for automatic-stay violations; district court also addressed §1983, §1985/§1986, and Rule 10b-5 claims and potential futility of amendments; Cook sought leave to amend with an 87-page proposed second amended complaint; the panel affirms most rulings but remands to modify certain dismissal terms to be without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman applicability to filing-restriction orders | Cook argues state-court orders violate his rights and are actionable in federal court | Wells Fargo contends Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgments | Rooker-Feldman does not bar these claims; order not final judgment at filing time |
| Standing to bring FAC claims, including estate versus debtor | Cook claims standing despite estate ownership; argues trustee abandonment | Estate owns the claims; Cook lacks standing unless abandoned | Cook collaterally estopped from claiming standing for stay-violation; other claims belong to estate; dismissal without prejudice for lack of standing warranted |
| §1983 and state-action requirement against private defendants | Defendants violated constitutional rights via conspiracy with state actors | Private conduct not fairly attributable to state; no plausible conspiracy with immune officials | Conspiracy allegations insufficient; §1983 claim dismissed; §1986 likewise rejected |
| Rule 10b-5 claim viability | Misrepresentations affected sale/purchase of securities; damages to Cook | Alleged misstatements not tied to a securities transaction; no reliance shown | Rule 10b-5 claim fails for lack of pleading of reliance and proper connection to a sale/purchase |
| Leave to amend (87-page proposed second amended complaint) | Requests to amend to cure deficiencies | Amendment would be futile given the deficiencies | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied as futile; remand to adjust dismissal without prejudice in part |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional principles and finality concerns)
- Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2012) (Rooker-Feldman applies to state-court judgments; requires pre-merits consideration)
- Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027 (10th Cir. 2006) (Finality for Rooker-Feldman; pre-final-state status matters)
- Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2004) (Trustee standing in bankruptcy matters; estate-bring or abate claims)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983) (§1985/§1986 standing/conspiracy scope not used for economic status claims)