McKenna v. Curtin
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16288
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Keven A. McKenna, an attorney practicing through a professional corporation, was suspended by the Rhode Island Supreme Court for one year for multiple ethics violations arising from his handling of a workers’ compensation matter, bankruptcy filings, and refusal to comply with a disciplinary subpoena.
- The Disciplinary Board held hearings, found clear and convincing evidence of four counts of misconduct, and recommended a one-year suspension; the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted that recommendation after a show-cause hearing.
- McKenna filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in federal district court (personal-capacity claims) against 23 judicial officers and disciplinary administrators, seeking declaratory relief (voiding rules), reinstatement, damages, and fees, alleging separation-of-powers and federal constitutional violations.
- The district court dismissed the suit, primarily holding it barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine; it alternatively invoked res judicata and judicial immunity.
- The First Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal on Rooker–Feldman grounds, concluding McKenna’s federal suit impermissibly sought review/rejection of a final state-court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has jurisdiction over claims attacking state-court disciplinary suspension | McKenna argued the suspension violated Rhode Island separation of powers and his federal constitutional rights; framed as public-law challenge | Defendants argued the suit is an impermissible collateral attack on a final state-court judgment and thus barred by Rooker–Feldman | Held: Rooker–Feldman bars the suit because McKenna, a state-court loser, seeks relief that would effectively reverse the state suspension |
| Whether McKenna’s challenge is a facial (public-law) attack that avoids Rooker–Feldman | McKenna asserted the Rules of Professional Conduct and the defendants’ authority were unconstitutional as applied and facially | Defendants argued the complaint shows an as-applied challenge tied to state-court adjudication, not a standalone facial challenge | Held: Complaint alleges as-applied injury; bald facial labels insufficient to avoid Rooker–Feldman |
| Whether the disciplinary proceedings were "judicial proceedings" for Rooker–Feldman purposes | McKenna contended proceedings were not judicial, so Rooker–Feldman inapplicable | Defendants pointed to precedent treating state appellate disciplinary/admission proceedings as judicial | Held: Proceedings were judicial in nature (like Feldman); Rhode Island Supreme Court adjudicated legal claims, so Rooker–Feldman applies |
| Whether other defenses (res judicata, judicial immunity) required resolution | McKenna did not substantially develop alternative arguments on appeal | District court raised these as alternative grounds for dismissal | Held: Court affirmed dismissal on Rooker–Feldman and did not need to reach alternative grounds; appellate record shows waiver of undeveloped claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes doctrine barring lower federal review of final state-court judgments)
- Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (state bar/admission/disciplinary decisions are judicial for Rooker–Feldman)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (limits Rooker–Feldman to cases where plaintiff complains of injury from state-court judgment and seeks its reversal)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (explains lower federal courts lack appellate jurisdiction over final state judgments)
- Badillo-Santiago v. Naveira-Merly, 378 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (First Circuit discussion of Rooker–Feldman application)
- Federación de Maestros v. Junta de Relaciones del Trabajo, 410 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005) (articulates prerequisites for Rooker–Feldman application)
- In re McKenna, 110 A.3d 1126 (R.I. 2015) (Rhode Island Supreme Court opinion adopting Disciplinary Board recommendation to suspend McKenna)
- United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (issues perfunctorily argued on appeal are deemed waived)