CHRISSY F., By Her Next Friend and Guardian Ad Litem Donna MEDLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. MS DEPT. OF PUBLIC WELFARE, et al., Defendants, MS Dept. of Public Welfare, Thomas H. Brittain, Jr., Individually and as Commissioner of the MS Dept. of Public Welfare, Marion County Welfare Department, Hancock County Welfare Department, Sharon Whitt, Individually and as Supervisor of Marion County Welfare Department, Angela Lacy, Individually and as Caseworker for Marion County Welfare Department, Phillip Broadhead and Fred Cooper, Defendants-Cross-Appellees, Sebe Dale, Jr., Individually and as Chancellor for the Tenth Chancery Court District of MS and Garland Upton, Individually and in his capacity as Referee of the Marion County Youth Court, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees.
No. 92-7002.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 7, 1993.
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug. 9, 1993.
995 F.2d 595
San Antonio, and Joseph out of the TTI office in Houston, several witnesses testified that the two companies were essentially one in the same. Moreover, both brothers were apparently present at meetings where some of the “conversions” were discussed. An agreement to take an OEC unit, without the consent of the OEC investor, convert it to solar power and “sell” it to an Enersolex investor is an agreement to violate the law, in that, among other things, the sale would aid and assist in the preparation of false returns, because it was performed with the expectation that investors would rely on their erroneous belief of ownership in filing returns.
Needless to say, there were numerous overt acts in furtherance of this agreement. Enersolex units were sold to those investors previously discussed. Joseph Coveney wrote letters to many of them, informing them of the end-user locations and installation dates. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that these are all overt acts taken with the expectation that taxpayers would rely on the false information in preparing and filing their returns.
III.
Accordingly, the convictions on counts 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 22-31 are AFFIRMED; those on counts 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16-21 are REVERSED; all sentences are VACATED; and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.
AFFIRMED in Part; REVERSED in Part; and REMANDED.
Sheila Brogna, Children‘s Law Offices, Daniel S. Mason, Furth, Fahrner, & Mason, San Francisco, CA, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges, and PARKER.1
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:
This case comes to us on appeal for the third time. It involves allegations that de-fendants
I
For the sake of brevity we refer the reader to the carefully detailed statement of facts in the district court‘s memorandum opinion and order. Chrissy F. By Medley v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, et al., 780 F.Supp. 1104 (S.D.Miss.1991). What follows is a brief summary of the most recent or relevant events in the long and tortured history of this case.
On July 8, 1988, Donna Medley, a California resident, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of Chrissy F., a Mississippi minor then six years old, alleging various violations of a vast array of constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. The complaint requested that declaratory judgment be granted against defendants Mississippi Department of Public Welfare (MDPW); Thomas H. Brittain, Commissioner of MDPW; Mississippi Attorney General Mike Moore; Sebe Dale, Jr., Chancellor of the Tenth Chancery Court District of Mississippi; Richard Douglas, District Attorney for the Fifteenth Circuit Court District; Sharon Whitt, Supervisor of the Marion County Welfare Department; Jeanette Werbley, Supervisor of the Hancock County Welfare Department; Angela Lacy, a caseworker with the Marion County Welfare Department (state defendants); Dr. Franklin D. Jones; Dr. S. Kimball Love; Timothy Charles Foxworth, father of Chrissy F.; and Does 1-25; alleging that these defendants had violated the minor‘s right not to be deprived of state and federally created benefits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, rights to freedom from harm and violation of the Fourteenth Amendment,
The complaint initially sought to have the United States District Court set aside the custody rulings of Chancellor Dale, a Mississippi Chancery Court judge, and award custody of Chrissy F. to the San Francisco Department of Social Services or to place her in an alleged neutral and stable setting, not with any maternal or paternal relatives, in cooperation with the National Children‘s Advocacy Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Additionally, the complaint sought an order requiring all defendants to pay for a comprehensive physical, psychological, and psychiatric evaluation of Chrissy F., and to force them to file a petition in the Youth Court of Hancock County, Mississippi, on behalf of the minor, to immediately investigate and pursue reports of sexual and psychological abuse.
Additionally, the complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages against all of the defendants except Youth Court Referee Upton and Chancellor Dale. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints pursuant to
We reversed and remanded the case to the district court, Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, 883 F.2d 25 (5th Cir.1989) (Chrissy I), directing the district court to hold a hearing to determine if Donna Medley should be appointed as guardian ad litem for Chrissy F. in these proceedings. In that opinion, we did not address any of the jurisdictional issues raised in the appeal such as the collateral attack on state court orders,
On remand, the district court appointed Donna Medley as guardian ad litem for Chrissy F. The court subsequently dismissed as defendants, by agreement with the plaintiff, Dr. Franklin Jones, Dr. Kimball Love, and Attorney General Mike Moore. The remaining parties conducted discovery and depositions. The defendants filed motions to dismiss or for summary judgment on March 30, 1990, on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity, absolute judicial immunity, and absolute prosecutorial immunity.
The district court denied the motions to dismiss except as to the Eleventh Amendment immunity from damages of the state defendants in their official capacities and as to absolute immunity and damages of the guardians ad litem, Broadhead and Cooper. The state defendants and District Attorney Douglas immediately appealed the denial of their immunity claims to this court. We affirmed the district court‘s opinion in Chrissy F. v. Mississippi Department of Public Welfare, et al., 925 F.2d 844 (5th Cir.1991) (Chrissy II). Our holding was, however, strictly limited to issues of absolute and qualified immunity from personal judgments for money damages, over which this court has interlocutory appellate jurisdiction. The immunity questions were decided only as to those defendants against whom Chrissy sought monetary damages—District Attorney Douglass, and Mississippi social workers Brittain, Whitt, Lacy and Werbley. Chrissy II did not consider the general defense of failure to state a claim or the availability of declaratory and injunctive relief. 925 F.2d at 849, 851.
The district court held a nonjury trial on the merits in June, 1991. Later, the court issued a lengthy memorandum opinion and order, dismissing all remaining claims against the defendants except Chancellor Dale and Youth Court Referee Upton. The district court found that Dale and Upton had violated Chrissy‘s right of access to courts. The district court also found that Upton had violated Chrissy‘s procedural due process rights. The district court enjoined Upton, in his capacity as Youth Court Referee of Marion County, Mississippi, to conduct a new youth court hearing to reexamine the allegation of Chrissy‘s sexual abuse. This appeal followed.
II
Appellants Dale and Upton argue that the district court had no subject matter jurisdiction to review collateral attacks on state court judgments. They contend that the relief sought by Chrissy F. in federal district court was essentially a reversal of the Chancery Court custody ruling. They also argue that the district court‘s order enjoining Upton to conduct a new hearing actually does reverse the final and definitive orders of the Chancery Court and Youth Court. They argue that Chrissy‘s only recourse was to seek review in the Mississippi state court system and then ultimately in the United States Supreme Court.
Chrissy F. defends the district court‘s ruling by pointing to the Fifth Circuit‘s previous reversal of the district court‘s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The appellees argue that the Fifth Circuit implicitly found subject matter jurisdiction by remanding to the district court for the appointment of a guardian ad litem. The appellees further assert that Chrissy F. did not seek and has not obtained a reversal of the state court custody decree in federal court. Rather, they argue that the district court‘s order enjoining Upton to hold another abuse adjudication is designed to insure that the proceeding conforms to her statutory and constitutional rights. Finally, they contend that Chrissy F. was not a party in the Chancery Court proceeding before Judge Dale, which originated as a divorce action between her parents, and therefore could not seek review in the state appellate courts.
The Supreme Court has stated that a “United States district court has no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings.” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 1314, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that “a petitioner‘s failure to raise his
The record in this case reveals that the plaintiff‘s suit is “patently an attempt to collaterally attack the validity of [the state court judgment].” Almon v. Sandlin, 603 F.2d 503, 506 (5th Cir.1979). As the district court originally believed, this suit, insofar as it seeks a new adjudication of Chrissy‘s alleged abuse and custody, is “inextricably intertwined” with the state court‘s rulings against the appellants. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n. 16, 103 S.Ct. at 1316 n. 16.
Our decision in this case is guided by Reed v. Terrell, 759 F.2d 472 (5th Cir.1985). In Reed, the plaintiffs filed suit under various statutory provisions, including
The appellees attempt to distinguish Reed by noting that the parties to the state suit in that case were also the parties to the federal suit, and thus, they would have been able to seek review in state court. However, as we have noted, Medley has not indicated why she or any other interested persons could not pursue an appeal in state courts. The guardians ad litem, for instance, had a duty to act in Chrissy F.‘s best interest. Medley challenges their effectiveness and judgment, but they were knowledgeable attorneys, and it is on their shoulders that the duty to object to the informality of the Youth Court hearing rested. The district court erred in attributing to Upton and Dale, as judicial officers, the constitutional duty to protect Chrissy F.‘s procedural rights beyond appointment of a guardian ad litem.3
Finally, the appellees’ assertion that we decided in favor of jurisdiction to award this injunctive relief in Chrissy I is unavailing. The court did not address any jurisdictional issues in that opinion. Instead, we remanded to the district court for a determination of whether Medley was the appropriate person to represent Chrissy under Mississippi law in accordance with
III
On cross-appeal, Medley challenges the district court‘s failure to award relief under
Accordingly, the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against Upton and Dale in this case. Its decision in this respect is REVERSED and RENDERED in their favor. In all other respects, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
REVERSED and RENDERED in Part, AFFIRMED in Part.