Kline v. Biles
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11797
10th Cir.2017Background
- Phillip D. Kline, a Kansas attorney, faced a disciplinary proceeding in 2011 that resulted in a 185-page report finding multiple Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct violations and recommending indefinite suspension.
- Kline filed exceptions; the Kansas Supreme Court heard the case in November 2012 and, in October 2013, ordered indefinite suspension, later denying rehearing.
- Kline sought recusal of five justices; they recused, and Justice Daniel Biles appointed temporary judges (court of appeals and district judges) to participate.
- Kline pursued post-judgment relief in state court and certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which denied review.
- In October 2015 Kline sued in federal district court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief: nine counts attacking the disciplinary judgment/process and one count (count ten) seeking a prospective challenge to Rule 219 (reinstatement standards).
- The district court dismissed nine counts under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine and dismissed count ten for lack of a justiciable case or controversy; the Tenth Circuit affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction to review Kline’s challenges to the Kansas Supreme Court disciplinary judgment | Kline argued he was not seeking appellate review but alleging constitutional violations and process defects distinct from the judgment | Defendant argued Rooker–Feldman bars lower federal-court review of state-court judgments and related claims | Dismissed: Rooker–Feldman bars counts attacking the disciplinary judgment or process because they are inextricably intertwined with the state judgment |
| Whether claims are "inextricably intertwined" with the state judgment | Kline claimed his claims are independent and not inextricably intertwined | Defendant said claims necessarily require review of the state-court decision and thus are barred | Held barred: most claims are textbook Rooker–Feldman applications and lack subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the state judgment is void on its face and therefore reviewable | Kline argued the judgment was void because Justice Biles lacked authority to appoint replacement judges | Defendant maintained any such defect does not convert the state judgment into a federally reviewable order | Held: district court correctly rejected this exception and lacked jurisdiction over those attacks |
| Whether count ten (prospective challenge to Rule 219) presents a justiciable case or controversy | Kline sought declaratory relief about Rule 219’s standards for reinstatement, alleging vagueness and unbridled discretion | Defendant argued count ten is speculative, not addressing present injury, and thus non-justiciable | Dismissed: count ten is speculative (seeks advisory relief about hypothetical future reinstatement) and fails Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (state-court decisions on bar admission/discipline are reviewable only by U.S. Supreme Court)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (Rooker–Feldman precludes lower federal-court appellate review of final state-court judgments)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (barred claims are those complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
- Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman bars claims actually decided or inextricably intertwined with state judgment)
- Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229 (10th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman does not apply when federal relief would not undo the state-court judgment)
- Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir.) (clarifying that barred claims are those complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments)