35 F.4th 1007
5th Cir.2022Background
- Bradley Miller sued ex-wife, judges, school, police, and local governments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations and related torts arising from bitter divorce, child-custody, and child-support proceedings.
- Two key state-court matters were then on appeal: a contempt/child-support judgment (affirmed on direct appeal) and a custody-related restraining order (state appeals pending).
- Miller filed the federal suit while those state-court appeals remained pending. He sought damages, declaratory relief voiding state orders, and injunctive relief against future state orders.
- The magistrate judge and district court sua sponte dismissed the federal case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, relying on Hale v. Harney and unpublished Fifth Circuit authority.
- On appeal the Fifth Circuit held Hale is no longer good law after Exxon Mobil and reversed, concluding Rooker–Feldman does not bar federal suits filed while state-court appeals are pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars a federal suit filed while the related state-court appeals remain pending | Miller: state appeals were pending, so Rooker–Feldman does not apply; federal court may hear §1983 claims | Defendants/District Court: Rooker–Feldman bars collateral attacks on state-court judgments (relying on Hale) | Rooker–Feldman inapplicable where state appeals are pending when the federal suit is filed; district court erred in dismissal |
| Whether Hale v. Harney remains controlling Fifth Circuit precedent on this point | Miller: Exxon Mobil and subsequent Supreme Court cases undermine Hale | Defendants: Hale remains binding under rule of orderliness | Court: Hale is implicitly overruled by Supreme Court precedent (Exxon Mobil, Lance, Skinner); Hale is no longer good law |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker–Feldman confined to cases seeking review of final state-court judgments after state proceedings ended)
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (emphasizing narrow scope of Rooker–Feldman)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (origin of doctrine prohibiting lower federal review of state supreme court judgments)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (doctrine’s foundational decision)
- Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521 (2011) (reinforcing narrow Rooker–Feldman application)
- Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688 (5th Cir. 1986) (earlier Fifth Circuit decision applying Rooker–Feldman to pending appeals—overruled by this opinion)
- Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Guy, 682 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussed Supreme Court limits on doctrine)
- Parker v. Lyons, 757 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 2014) (collecting circuits holding Rooker–Feldman inapplicable while state appeals pending)