727 F.3d 450
6th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Hall and Cody filed numerous pro se complaints against neighbors and others in state court.
- Harig sued to designate Hall and Cody vexatious under Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.52.
- Judge Cross designated Plaintiffs vexatious sua sponte in a summary judgment, dismissing other state-court claims.
- Plaintiffs sought appellate relief; statute required leave to appeal, which was denied as untimely or not granted.
- Plaintiffs pursued a § 1983 action in federal court alleging due process/equal protection violations, as-applied and facial challenges to the vexatious-litigator statute.
- Cody died during the appeal, rendering the case moot for him.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the due process/equal protection challenge. | Hall and Cody argue the challenge attacks state-court procedure, not the judgment itself. | Defendants contend Rooker-Feldman bars review of state-court judgments and derivative challenges. | Yes; Rooker-Feldman bars the challenge to Judge Cross's judgment. |
| Whether Rooker-Feldman bars the as-applied challenge to the statute. | Plaintiffs seek relief from enforcement in future cases as applied to their situation. | Rooker-Feldman precludes challenges premised on past state-court injury; as-applied future relief is not ripe. | Barred to the extent based on past state-court judgment; as to ripeness, not reached on merits. |
| Whether the vexatious-litigator statute is facially constitutional. | Statute is unconstitutional on its face (First/Fourteenth Amendments); overbroad; alternatives exist. | Statute rationally relates to preventing frivolous litigation; not overbroad; provides meritorious-path access. | Constitutional under rational-basis review; not overbroad; First/Fourteenth challenges rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tropf v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co., 289 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2002) (Rooker-Feldman limitations and general standing principles cited in context of facial challenges)
- Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 1998) (Rooker-Feldman rule and the approach to state-court judgments reviewability)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (Supreme Court on limits of federal court review of state-court judgments)
- Luber v. Sprague, 90 F. App’x 908 (6th Cir. 2004) (Court discusses scope of Rooker-Feldman and related reviewability)
- Evans v. Cordray, 424 F. App’x 537 (6th Cir. 2011) (Addresses ripeness and as-applied challenges under Rooker-Feldman in context of vexatious-litigant statutes)
- Howard v. Whitbeck, 382 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 2004) (As-applied challenges and ripeness considerations in similar constitutional challenges)