Stephen Avdeef v. Royal Bank of Scotland, P.L.C., 616 F. App'x 665

Background

In 2010 RBS Citizens sued Stephen Avdeef in Texas state court to collect on a defaulted car note; the state court granted summary judgment for the bank and the Texas appellate court affirmed.
Post-judgment discovery: Avdeef refused a compelled deposition, was sanctioned, held in contempt, and a writ of attachment was executed; at a hearing Judge Chupp warned Avdeef he could be jailed for contempt if he refused to comply.
Two days after that hearing Avdeef filed pro se in federal court naming RBS entities, Judge Chupp, RBS’s counsel Brady, and the State of Texas; he alleged § 1983, FDCPA, defamation, and other claims and sought roughly $26 million and injunctive/declaratory relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of service, failure to state a claim, and immunity; the magistrate recommended dismissal on Rooker–Feldman, judicial and sovereign immunity, and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds; the district court adopted the recommendations and denied leave to amend as futile.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo the Rule 12(b)(6) and futility rulings and affirmed: it rejected Rooker–Feldman as inapplicable, but upheld dismissals based on judicial and sovereign immunity, failure to plead § 1983 under color of state law, failure to state FDCPA and state-law defamation claims, and found no abuse in denying default or sanctions or denying leave to amend.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of default judgments	Avdeef argued defendants responded late and default was warranted	Defendants argued improper service and meritorious defenses; default is drastic and service was defective	No abuse of discretion: default inappropriate given service defects and merits defenses
Denial of Rule 11 sanctions	Avdeef claimed opposing counsel misrepresented representation and misled the court	Defendants said counsel properly notified service defects and did not misrepresent representation	Denial affirmed: no showing of district court abuse of discretion
Dismissal on jurisdictional and merits grounds (Rooker–Feldman; immunity; Rule 12(b)(6))	Avdeef contended federal court could hear his § 1983, FDCPA, and tort claims arising from state proceedings	Defendants argued Rooker–Feldman, judicial/sovereign immunity, failure to state plausible claims and lack of state-action for § 1983	Rooker–Feldman not applicable (claims seek damages, not direct review), but dismissal affirmed: Judge Chupp entitled to absolute judicial immunity; State immune; claims otherwise fail Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility and lack "under color of state law" allegations
Denial of leave to amend	Amendment would add claim that court reporter conspired to alter transcript, curing defects	Defendants argued amendment would be futile and still fail to plead conspiracy or a protected federal interest	Denial affirmed as futile: proposed amendment would not cure jurisdictional or Rule 12(b)(6) defects

Key Cases Cited

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (defines Rooker–Feldman narrow scope)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2005) (absolute judicial immunity standard)
Truong v. Bank of Am., N.A., 717 F.3d 377 (5th Cir. 2013) (distinguishing Rooker–Feldman from independent claims)
Weaver v. Tex. Capital Bank, N.A., 660 F.3d 900 (5th Cir. 2011) (Rooker–Feldman and inextricably intertwined test)
Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338 (5th Cir. 1994) (§ 1983 liability for private parties requires joint activity/conspiracy allegations)
Baldwin v. Daniels, 250 F.3d 943 (5th Cir. 2001) (procedural due process requires protected liberty, life, or property interest)
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (state action/joint participation framework)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity)
Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2001) (default judgments are drastic and disfavored)