Nancy Nolette v. Roger Tobler
699 F. App'x 740
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nolette, proceeding pro se, sued Boulder City alleging it violated constitutional rights by repeatedly naming residents in state lawsuits.
- The district court dismissed Nolette’s complaint, invoking Rooker–Feldman for claims tied to a 2006 state-court case and Younger abstention for claims tied to ongoing state litigation.
- Nolette appealed the dismissals to the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether Rooker–Feldman and Younger barred federal jurisdiction and whether claim/issue preclusion might nevertheless apply.
- The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal under both Rooker–Feldman and Younger, and remanded for the district court to consider preclusion and the merits under Rule 12(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of claims tied to the 2006 state judgment | Nolette alleges injury from Boulder City’s policy of suing citizens, not from the state-court judgment | Boulder City contends claims are de facto appeal of state judgment and thus barred | Rooker–Feldman does not bar these claims; Nolette complains of an adverse party’s conduct, not a state judgment |
| Whether Younger abstention requires dismissal of claims tied to ongoing state cases | Nolette argues federal courts may hear her constitutional claims | Boulder City argues ongoing state cases are civil enforcement proceedings warranting abstention | Younger does not apply because the state proceedings are not the type of "exceptional" civil enforcement proceedings described in Sprint/ReadyLink |
| Whether claim or issue preclusion bars Nolette’s claims | Nolette contends some issues may be precluded against Boulder City | Boulder City argues preclusion prevents relitigation of matters decided in state court | Remanded for district court to decide preclusion in the first instance |
| Whether the complaint fails on the merits (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Nolette sufficiently pleaded plausible First Amendment violations | Boulder City argues dismissal on the merits was proper | Court declined to decide merits on appeal; left for district court on remand under Twombly plausibility standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2004) (defines Rooker–Feldman de facto appeal analysis)
- Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishes injuries caused by state judgment from injuries caused by adverse parties)
- Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584 (2013) (limits Younger abstention to three categories of exceptional state proceedings)
- ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014) (applies Sprint’s framework to Younger analysis)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (establishes Younger abstention doctrine)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)