989 F.3d 452
6th Cir.2021Background
- The Parrish Firm represented Nancy Strong in a legal-malpractice matter, later receiving an assignment of some of Strong’s rights to secure payment for costs advanced.
- The firm sued to recover $116,316; Strong counterclaimed; a jury awarded Strong approximately $2.29 million, including punitive damages.
- The Parrish Firm appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals; the appellate opinion affirmed in relevant part and contained factual statements the firm alleges were false.
- Parrish filed a federal suit against the three state appellate judges seeking only a declaratory judgment that the judges’ statements violated the Firm’s Fourteenth Amendment rights (no damages or injunctive relief sought).
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), finding lack of jurisdiction (Rooker-Feldman and no justiciable controversy), and also citing judicial immunity, statute of limitations, and pleading defects; the Sixth Circuit affirmed on jurisdictional grounds.
- The Sixth Circuit also concluded the appeal was frivolous enough to warrant a show-cause order for possible sanctions under Fed. R. App. P. 38 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and retained jurisdiction to resolve sanctions after defendants submit an affidavit of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional bar | Parrish: federal court can decide whether appellate opinion contains deliberately fabricated, objectively false statements without re-reviewing state judgment | Defs: federal courts lack authority to review or reject state-court judgments or factual findings; Rooker-Feldman bars the suit | Held: Rooker-Feldman bars the claim—plaintiff seeks to impermissibly relitigate state-court judgment/facts |
| Article III / declaratory-judgment justiciability | Parrish: declaratory relief is appropriate to vindicate Fourteenth Amendment rights even if limited to past statements | Defs: no live case or controversy; plaintiff seeks an advisory ruling about past actions with no prospective relief | Held: No justiciable controversy; declaratory relief would be advisory and not redressable—dismissal for lack of Article III jurisdiction |
| Judicial immunity / merits (Fourteenth Amendment claim) | Parrish: judges’ alleged false statements violated due process and equal protection rights | Defs: judges are immune and complaint fails to state a plausible constitutional claim; statute of limitations also bars suit | Held: Court did not reach merits or immunity because it lacked jurisdiction; district court’s other grounds would independently support dismissal if reached |
| Sanctions for frivolous appeal | Defs: appeal is frivolous, prosecuted to harass/delay; seek fees under Rule 38 and § 1927 | Parrish: (not persuasive on appeal) | Held: Court found appeal meritless on multiple fronts, ordered defendants to file affidavit of fees and required Parrish and his counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (explains Rooker-Feldman bar on federal review of state-court judgments)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (foundation case underlying the prohibition on lower federal courts reviewing state judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (part of the Supreme Court decisions establishing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (1998) (federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions; redressability and live controversy required)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (case-or-controversy requirement for declaratory judgments)
- Grand Trunk W. Rail Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 746 F.2d 323 (6th Cir. 1984) (factors for exercising discretion over declaratory-judgment jurisdiction)
- Red Carpet Studios Div. of Source Advantage, Ltd. v. Sater, 465 F.3d 642 (6th Cir. 2006) (standard for imposing sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927)
- Barney v. Holzer Clinic, Ltd., 110 F.3d 1207 (6th Cir. 1997) (defines frivolous appeal standard for Rule 38 sanctions)