Grigsby v. Dick
671 F. App'x 1031
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Philip Grigsby, a federal inmate serving a lengthy sentence, filed a pro se § 1983 complaint challenging actions taken in three Reno County, Kansas state-court proceedings (a divorce he initiated and two child-in-need-of-care matters).
- Grigsby alleged he was denied notice of filings and hearings, his incarceration was improperly used against him, and the state court failed to recognize his pro se filings and status as counsel; he sought investigation, appointment of counsel, records/transcripts, and a fair adjudication.
- Defendants named were three Kansas state judges who presided over the proceedings and an attorney who represented Grigsby’s ex-wife.
- The district court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B) and dismissed without prejudice, concluding: (1) Rooker–Feldman barred federal review of the state-court judgments; (2) the judges were protected by absolute judicial immunity as to damages; and (3) the opposing attorney was not a state actor subject to § 1983.
- Grigsby appealed; the Tenth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed the district court’s order and denial of in forma pauperis status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal court may review and grant relief that would effectively overturn state-court decisions | Grigsby sought relief for alleged procedural and ethical violations in state cases, effectively challenging state-court judgments/proceedings | Defendants argued Rooker–Feldman bars federal-court review of state-court adjudications and their outcomes | Dismissed under Rooker–Feldman; federal court may not substitute for state appellate review |
| Whether the state judges are subject to suit for damages under § 1983 | Grigsby sought relief against judges for actions in state proceedings | Judges asserted absolute judicial immunity for acts within their judicial capacity | Judges entitled to absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts; claims for damages barred |
| Whether the opposing attorney is a state actor for § 1983 liability | Grigsby alleged the attorney’s conduct violated his federal rights | Attorney argued she was a private actor, not acting under color of state law | Attorney was a private actor; not subject to § 1983 liability |
| Whether the complaint stated a non-frivolous claim permitting federal relief despite plaintiff’s incarceration and pro se status | Grigsby argued denial of notice/recognition of filings deprived him of rights and warranted investigation/relief | Defendants and district court argued legal doctrines and immunities defeat the asserted claims | Complaint failed as a matter of law under abstention and immunity doctrines; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity protects judges from damages for judicial acts)
- Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997 (describing Rooker–Feldman limitation on federal review of state-court judgments)
- Anderson v. Suiters, 499 F.3d 1228 (private attorneys are not § 1983 state actors absent close state involvement)