Kevin Cooper v. Michael Ramos
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26439
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Kevin Cooper was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 1985.
- Cooper pursued post-conviction efforts, including a 2010 California Penal Code § 1405 DNA testing motion.
- The California Superior Court denied § 1405 testing, citing lack of evidence of tampering and that testing would not change the outcome.
- Cooper filed a federal 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations and conspiracy related to the § 1405 proceeding and tampering claims.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a de facto appeal of the state court decision and without leave to amend.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the Rooker-Feldman bar applies to all claims, and affirmed dismissal without leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars Cooper's claims | Cooper argues federal claims are independent challenges to due process and statute, not a direct appeal. | Ramos/Myers argue federal claims amount to de facto appeal of state court § 1405 decision. | Barred; claims are de facto appeals and intertwined with state judgment. |
| Whether claim two (conspiracy to deny § 1405 process) is barred | Conspiracy claim stands independently from the state court ruling. | Claim is inextricably intertwined with the state court’s denial of § 1405 relief. | Barred; inextricably intertwined with the state court decision. |
| Whether claim three (conspiracy to tamper with evidence and fair trial) is barred | Conspiracy to tamper evidence is a broader due process challenge to investigation and conviction. | Claims rely on state-court findings and would undermine the state judgment. | Barred; inextricably intertwined and effectively a prohibited appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes prohibition on federal review of state-court judgments)
- Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (de facto appeal framework; limits on federal review of state rules)
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes de facto appeals from independent claims)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 131 S. Ct. 1289 (2011) (statutory challenges may be raised; not all challenges barred)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (narrow scope of Rooker-Feldman; cautions against broad application)
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 (1987) (test for whether federal relief would reverse state court merits)
- Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000) (finality inference when dismissal lacks leave-to-amend details)
- Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2003) (elements of collateral estoppel applicability)
- Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (corporate/party preclusion principles in subsequent actions)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 claims barred where success would imply invalidating conviction)