Farris v. Burton
686 F. App'x 590
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Rebecca Farris divorced Jack Burton; state trial court divided marital property heavily in Burton’s favor. Farris appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals (KCA); Burton cross-appealed. The KCA affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court denied review.
- Farris sued Burton and Burton’s appellate counsel, Thomas Caleb Boone, in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they devised a fraudulent scheme that corrupted the KCA and caused affirmation of the unfair property division.
- She sought damages for deprivation of property rights allegedly caused by defendants’ fraud on the appellate court.
- Burton moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6); the district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) as barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and sua sponte dismissed claims against Boone for the same reason.
- Farris appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether her federal suit impermissibly sought review/rejection of a state-court judgment and whether allegations of fraud on the state court could avoid Rooker–Feldman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars Farris’s § 1983 suit | Farris contends she is not directly attacking the trial judgment but seeking damages for defendants’ fraud on the appellate process | Burton argues the suit asks the federal court to review and overturn state-court outcomes, so Rooker–Feldman bars jurisdiction | Rooker–Feldman applies; claims are barred because they necessarily call into question the state trial and appellate judgments |
| Whether allegations of fraud on the state appellate court create an independent federal claim outside Rooker–Feldman | Farris asserts fraud on the appellate court produced an independent constitutional injury removable to federal court | Defendants assert collateral attacks on state judgments based on alleged corruption must be pursued in state court and do not confer federal jurisdiction | Court rejects fraud exception; collateral attacks based on corrupting state process do not evade Rooker–Feldman in this circuit |
| Whether Hazel‑Atlas (fraud remedy) supports federal jurisdiction here | Farris relies on Hazel‑Atlas as authority that fraud permits federal review | Defendants distinguish Hazel‑Atlas as addressing fraud in a federal forum and a federal court’s ability to remedy its own judgments | Court holds Hazel‑Atlas is inapposite because it concerns fraud in federal proceedings, not jurisdiction to review state-court judgments |
| Whether Rooker–Feldman can be applied to a non‑party to state proceedings (Boone) | Farris argues Boone wasn’t a party in state court, so Rooker–Feldman shouldn’t bar claims against him | Defendants respond that the doctrine bars relief to the state-court loser (Farris) regardless of which private actors are sued | Court holds doctrine is applied to Farris’s claims (she is the state-court loser); her claims against Boone are barred because they seek relief that would effectively overturn the state judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- PJ ex. rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman bars lower federal-court review of claims inextricably intertwined with state-court judgments)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S.) (defines Rooker–Feldman scope: federal courts cannot act as appellate tribunals for state-court judgments)
- Hazel‑Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford‑Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (U.S.) (addresses a federal court’s power to vacate its own judgment for fraud; inapplicable to federal review of state-court judgments)
- Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman generally not applied against nonparties, but claim preclusion depends on the plaintiff’s status as state-court loser)
- Nesses v. Shepard, 68 F.3d 1003 (7th Cir.) (holds that extreme corruption of state process can create an independent federal claim; Tenth Circuit declined to follow)
- Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.) (standard of de novo review for dismissals for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.) (treatment of Rooker–Feldman as to nonparties and scope of the doctrine)