Gulla v. North Strabane Township

underlying the bail- facts guilt {e.g., to ted the essential to factual not relate that do latter, see challenge charge. to a As to the jumping statute make a constitutional testimony applicability of a nothing to the in Muhammad’s or a conduct). in- In each such re- his statement of statute to amounts to an affirmative however, stance, that a contrition, a determination and we refuse to so morse or accepted responsibility will has defendant of law on the basis conclude as a matter upon pre-trial state- primarily Muhammad, be based fifth amend- once he waived his ments and conduct. obligation not to privilege, fulfilled his argu- to Muhammad’s perjure himself. As Id. guilty, we regarding plead his offer to ments based its decision The district court disturbing the district court’s see basis on its conclu- deny Muhammad the reduction Muhammad’s offer amounted conclusion that “nothing pretrial in Muhammad’s sion that especially maneuvering.” This is to “tactical accep- to an affirmative conduct amounts of the fact that the district true Rather, responsibility.” tance of Muhammad that he specifically informed engaged had in “some found that Muhammad government’s plead guilty without the could (non- gain maneuvering” to a benefit tactical thus, consent, truly had Muhammad related to the bail admission of the evidence remorseful, prevented him nothing been offense) guilty plea. jumping return for jumping charge. pleading guilty to the bail trial, by going to The court also found government not “presented Muhammad record, reviewing we find noth- After case, prove but also with the need ing in the facts that leads us to conclude jury nullification.”9 with the risk of clearly in determin- the district court erred arguments Muhammad directs of the “rare instanc- that this was not one refuting exclusively to almost responsibility acceptance es” which that he forced the district court’s conclusions despite the defen- reduction is warranted government prove its case and go to trial. dant’s decision was a risk of nullification. We do there district court will be The govern arguments, or the address these affirmed. responses, since miss ment’s forceful court’s deci the essential basis of the district is, we to

sion. That even were conclude actively guilt, contest his

Muhammad did not nullification, way in no

and that he courted

he still would not be entitled to the reduction showing affirmatively ac

absent a that he

cepted responsibility for his conduct. See Portillo-Valenzuela,

e.g. United States v. (10th Cir.1994) (“the question actively as [the defendant] is not whether GULLA, Ronald ‘clearly innocence but whether he serted his acceptance guilt.”) of his demonstrate^]’ 3El.l(a)). Clearly (quoting dem U.S.S.G. responsibility re onstrating acceptance of TOWNSHIP; Nor NORTH STRABANE

quires genuine of contrition. show See Wintermyer, individually and in her ma (1st Royer, States v. capacity as North Strabane Cir.1990). Axelson, M.D.; Supervisor; Lin Alan A. Associates; T.A. Ward Con dencreek only evidence of remorse that Muham- Building Develop Advanced plead structors mad directs us he offered to ment. guilty and that he took the stand and admit- plea jury sympathy. government views Muhammad’s statement jury he that he fled because was "scared” Evelyn And

Ronald Gulla

Gulla, Appellants.* 97-3302.

No. Appeals, Court of

United States

Third Circuit.

Argued Dec.

Decided June Washington, (Argued), M. Suwak

Peter PA, Attorney Appellants. 12(a), to Rule F.R.A.P.

*Pursuant II, Kunz, spring, with their Farneth, would interfere Zimmer George R. the new PA, located on land within P.C., Attorney Appellees which was Pittsburgh, subdivision, Axelson, right-of-way that con- and the Alan A. Associates and Lindencreek to the Güilas’ home. veyed spring water M.D. gave Shortly Lindencreek after Giunta, & Asso- C. Leon Sherman John M. T.A. Constructors its contractors Ward PA, ciates, P.C., Attorney Pittsburgh, for (“Ward”) Develop- Building and Advanced Wintermyer in her individu- Appellee Norma (“ABD”), excavating the sub- began on capacity. al destroyed property. excavation division This Jr., Mayer, McDyer, Paul Daniel P. G. line in their spring the and a water Güilas’ Yurcon, McDyer, Anstandig, Burdette & right-of-way. The Güilas demanded PA, P.C., Attorneys Appellee Pittsburgh, for and its contractors restore Lindencreek Building Development. Advanced line, but Lindencreek did spring and water (Ar- Walsh, III, Elby Shannon E. Paul J. repairs. requested not make Summers, McDonnell, gued) Walsh & Skeel appealed Supervi- the Board of The Güilas Attorneys Appellees Pittsburgh, PA for approval of the subdivision to Court sors’ Township North and Norma Win- Washington County. In Pleas of of Common termyer capacity. in her official court, actions the Güilas Sheehy Sheehy, D. Charles D. & Charles Township due policies “violatefd] and of the PA, Associates, Pittsburgh, Attorney Ap- equal protection provisions of process and pellee Ward Constructors. T.A. Constitutions.” the state and United States alleged that the Board’s The Güilas further ALITO, and Circuit Before: NYGAARD approve subdivi- decision to the Lindencreek DEBEVOISE, Judge.** Judges, and District “invalid, arbitrary, capricious, an sion was contrary to law.” abuse of discretion and OF THE COURT OPINION The Court of Common Pleas affirmed ALITO, Judge. Circuit dis- approval Board’s of the subdivision and Evelyn chal- Appellants Ronald and Güila appeal. The court held missed the Güilas’ lenge dismissal of their federal civil under Güilas on the Rooker-Feldman claims based we conclude that the Güi- doctrine. Because Alternatively, concluded approval. doctrine, by are not barred las’ claims Township applicable followed we reverse. governing and statutes the subdi- ordinances appealed process. The this de-

vision Güilas I. of Penn- cision to the Commonwealth Court sylvania, affirmed the lower court’s which The Güilas own a home in North Strabane peti- The filed an allocatur decision. Güilas Township, Pennsylvania.1 April Lin- Pennsylva- Supreme tion with the (“Lindencreek”) applied dencreek Associates nia, granted review. That is which Township permission to subdivide pending. adjacent develop land to the Güilas’ property. Supervi- After the Court issued its proposal approved Lindencreek’s sors opinion, brought suit in federal the Güilas 28,1994. June -alleged Lin- The Güilas district court. Ward, dencreek, Axelson, its owner Alan were first of the informed ABD, Township, Norma July approval Board’s 1994 when Linden- (a Wintermyer member creek notified them that construction Debevoise, allegations in the Güi- Senior draw these facts from **The Honorable Dickinson R. Judge Lincoln-Mercury complaint. Liberty United States District for the District of v. See las’ designation. Jersey, sitting by (3d Co., New n. 18 Ford Motor Cir.1998); Systems, Data Kachmar v. SunGard 1. Because the district court dismissed Inc., (3d Cir.1997). jurisdiction, subject matter claims for lack of previous- claims that been Supervisors) violated their civil constitutional Board Process, ly adjudicated Due guaranteed state court or that are rights as Protection, Compensation inextricably and Just intertwined a state Equal with such 840; adjudication. Fourteenth Amend- Fifth and Blake Clauses States Constitution. Papadakos, ments to pendent state-law also asserted inextricably The Güilas A federal' claim intertwined against all of the defendants adjudication of action prior causes with a except Township. to the ex- succeeds the Güilas’ federal suit

The defendants to wrongly tent that the state court decided court granted dismiss. The district words, moved to before it. In other issues it concluded that this motion because precludes a federal ac- were barred Güilas’ federal claims requested tion if relief in the federal The district doctrine. effectively action would reverse the state jurisdiction over court declined exercise ruling. Accordingly, to or void its remaining state-law claims and the Güilas’ whether Rooker-Feldman bars determine dismissed those without therefore [plaintiffs] suit requires determin- appealed dis- prejudice. these ing exactly held.... what state court to this court. missals requested If the in action relief the federal requires determining court’s that the state

II. wrong decision is or would void the state grant ruling, of a motion dismiss court’s then issues are inextri- subject jurisdiction cably matter is sub intertwined and the court has for lack of district review, subject jurisdiction ject plenary Allegheny v. matter to hear the FOCUS Pleas, 834, 75 County Court suit. of (3d Cir.1996), independently must we 839-40 (omissions F.3d at 840 and alter- 75 Rooker-Feldman doc decide whether v. original) (quoting ations in Charchenko federal claims. In so trine bars Güilas’ (8th Stillwater, 981, City 1 983 n. of obligation our doing, we are mindful of Cir.1995)). estab preserve the avenues of direct review indicates, passage As FOCUS Congress. Inc. by ASARCO v. Rad lished analysis step the first in a Rooker-Feldman 622-23, 2037, ish, 605, 490 U.S. S.Ct. “exactly is to What the state determine (1989). 2048-49, 104 L.Ed.2d 696 Under 28 by Accordingly, begin examin- held.” Id. 1257, litigants have state court who U.S.C. Pennsylvania ing judgments of the through an appealed adverse courts. may in system review the state seek Court; Supreme the lower federal States filing, first court the Güilas In their may not in direct review of the courts sit Township’s actions consid of a tribunal. District Co decisions state ering approving subdi and the.Lindencreek Feldman, v. Appeals lumbia Court of equal and process vision the due “violatefd] 1303, 462, 482, 1314-15, 75 U.S. 103 S.Ct. and United protection provisions the state (1983); Fidelity v. Trust L.Ed.2d Rooker and that the States Constitutions” 413, 416, Co., 44 S.Ct. 263 U.S. “invalid, arbitrary, Supervisors’ decision was Larsen, (1923); L.Ed. 362 Guarino -of and con capricious, an abuse discretion (3d Cir.1993); Auth. 1156-57 Port App. trary to at 67a-71a. The Court law.” Auth., Benev. Ass’n v. Port Police allega responded to these of Common 169, 178 by addressing tions the issue that, standing. The court concluded barring appel our While the rule stated, adjacent landowners easily under is review of state decisions late of a property interest particular private with a determining whether the test standing to do proposed subdivision not such direct review is more litigant seeks approval of the subdivision. complex. Rooker-Feldman doc Under the Township, Civ. trine, See Gulla v. North federal courts cannot entertain lower (C.P. federal, state, require plied all and local Washington with Div. 94-3933 at No. 1995). error, ments, al- Sep. Since the Güilas assertion based County [the Güilas’] they injury private rights rights inappropriate leged private is deed, Gulla, the court held that received 94- instant action.” Civ. Div. No. proceed- challenge the subdivision could not 3933 at 5. Additionally, ana- ings. See id. collectively The defendants assert rejected lyzed the Güilas’ claim that the and concluding summarily re that this statement comply Township and Lindencreek failed pro jected process equal the Güilas’ due governing with the ordinances the subdivi- the merits. If this conten process. emphasized The court tection claims on sion true, Township’s had been even if the ordinances tion is then we must conclude that violated, the Güilas lacked because opinion bars at least some of state court’s permitted “the to consider If a court con Güilas’ federal claims. private rights grant- individuals before rejects a constitutional claim on siders approval” and because the paucity explicit analysis in regulations are environmental holding opinion strip will not the court’s alleged private water “unaffected validity purposes of Rooker-Feld of its Despite Id. at 4-5. of individuals.” Indeed, jurisdictional man’ bar. in Feld s that the Güilas lacked stand- this conclusion man, adjudicated plain the state court substantively analyzed ing, whether summarily constitutional claims and did tiffs complied Township’s with the defendants not refer to each of the claims when it issued ordinances. The court concluded that Nevertheless, per its curiam order. ap- procedures followed the court was sufficient to invoke state decision proving a subdivision and that Lindencreek’s jurisdictional bar because “Feldman had plan final subdivision contained all of the legal petition in a raised his claims to necessary comply information to with the had an court and the court issued overarch Township’s development and environmental implicitly denying all of thus ordinances. Guarino, legal 11 F.3d at 1159- claims.”

If the Court of Common Pleas had closed discussed, analysis- just opinion its with the However, upon scrutiny careful of the easily opinion conclude we would that opinion, we conclude Court of Common Pleas’ does not invoke the Rooker-Feldman doc- expressly implicitly court or that the did trine to bar the Güilas’ federal claims. adjudicate the Güilas’ constitutional claims. applies “Rooker-Feldman when in order proeedurally styled were The Güilas’ claims grant plaintiff the relief to the federal appeal Township’s approval as an sought, court must determine the federal subdivision, the Lindencreek and the court’s judgment that the state court was erroneous- ruling based on its conclusion that is clearly ly that entered or must take action would standing bring the Güilas lack to such a suit. ineffectual.” render essence, law, Under the court could not at of the Court of the merits of the resolve Gullas’ claims opinion Common Pleas’ under Penn- See, standing bring lack to their suit. law, sylvania standing the Güilas lack to chal- Exch, 3, e.g., Nye v. Erie Ins. 504 Pa. 470 lenge process. the subdivision Güi- 98, (1983); T.J., 100 In re A2d A.2d standing bring their federal claims is las’ (Pa.Super.Ct.1997); Building Indus. a matter of federal district Township, A.2d As soc. v. Manheim clearly could consider the Güilas’ due (1998) (“when 141, 146-47 [the of] process, equal protection, and Fifth Amend- plaintiff] that[the determined takings disturbing the claims without ..., standing longer possessed However, lacked it no state court’s conclusion. at the jurisdiction any the case to address over end of its discussion about whether Linden- Desiderio, merits.”); plan complied creek’s with the (Pa.Commw.Ct.1997). ordinance, 698 A.2d the state court add- environmental principle, com- of this well-established we ed: “Because Lindencreek Associates “[wjhen Likewise, n. 16. have opinion cannot be stated believe that court’s willing litigant expects a adjudication of court is an the Güilas’ consti- cast as claims, Moreover, legal consider its raises some of those claims. to the extent that tutional claims, adjudicated, and has those claims it upon commented the state court apply principles makes sense normal question it limited its discussion preclusion litigant hold that the has Township failed to follow the whether the any legal or waived claims he she fails express provisions and envi- raise which arisen from same trans- It is in the context of ronmental ordinances. Guarino, action.” 11 F.3d at 1160. the court stated that this discussion that federal, state, “complied with all Lindenereek case, In this we conclude Güilas Guild, requirements.” Civ. Div. and local precluded bringing are not from their federal context, at 5. Read we believe No. 94-3933 claims because the state court could not and compliance refers to with adjudicate this statement did not the merits of their consti Rather, zoning regula- technical and environmental tutional claims. the state court not tions, standing and not to a conclusion the Town- ed that the to raise Güilas requirements appeal claims in an ship’s actions their constitutional satisfied Equal Board’s subdivision decision. Since Gul Due Protec- federal Process adjudication of their las could not obtain tion Clauses.2 court, they precluded are not Likewise, the decision of Common .the raising their constitutional claims Court does not bar the Güilas’ federal wealth See, e.g., forum. Hawksbill Sea Tur claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (3d Cir.1997) tle v. FEMA held that Commonwealth Court (quoting Wright, A. Arthur R. 18 Charles “correctly Court of Common Pleas found Cooper, Miller & Edward H. Federal Prac did not have (“If and Procedure tice process.” approval Gulla v. by findings supported decision is (Pa. Township, 676 A.2d 709 deny power to decide the court 1996). The Commonwealth Commw.Ct. by findings merits that reach case on the Court therefore affirmed the lower court’s inappropriate to preclusion is as claims. See id. dismissal of the Güilas’ merits.”)); Guarino, 11 findings on the reasoning Since the Court’s (“A litigant at 1161-62 & n. 8 suffers above, parallels discussed we conclude by attempting raise his or her real harm inextricably is not inter decision claim in state court: constitutional with the Güilas’federal claims. twined the constitu state court refuses to address claim, litigant then raise the tional can affirmance, As an alternative basis any jurisdic without claim federal court suggest the decisions of the defendants abstention, tional, prob estoppel or collateral and the Com the Court of Common Pleas Mitchell, lems.”); 962 F.2d Valenti v. preclude Güilas’ federal monwealth Court Cir.1992) (3d Rooker- (stating that the principles of claim action under traditional preclusion doctrine and claim will Feldman Feldman, In preclusion. and issue Su litigants only apply have had when “full litigant preme Court noted that who raises litigate opportunity fair their claims in some but not all its constitutional court.”). claim in state may raising precluded be from state court Güilas are not any we conclude claims other forum. See Feld those claims, man, 16, 108 precluded bringing federal their at n. at 1816 U.S. S.Ct. suit, did recognize their we conclude that the inclusion We overarching on the merits of quote imply in this could issue word"federal” Moreover, even if this state- rejected claims. the Güilas’ federal the Güilas’ considered and However, adjudication of the be cast as an the same ment could claims. constitutional claims, it not invoke the federal could that the Güilas’ sentence the court reaffirmed error, commentary rights on private since the bar based Rooker-Feldman "assertion Gutta, that the Güilas’ followed a conclusion inappropriate the merits in the instant action.” standing. Turtle v. See Hawksbill Sea Div. No. con- Civ. FEMA, bring that the Güilas lacked clusion equal protection provisions we need not address their assertion that the cess and Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not their bar state and the United States Constitutions.” against Wintermyer claim Norma because In the Federal District Court for the West- party Pennsylvania, she was not a to the state suit in her again ern District of he Likewise, capacity. given individual we do not con that “no notice was ever to the Güilas argument sider the Güilas’ that their concerning process.” And result, escape the Rooker-Feldman bar be “defendants have violated allegedly newly cause are based on rights plaintiffs.” dis the civil covered facts. We also decline to address The Court of Common held that argument that the Güilas failed to state a under the ordinance Gulla was not entitled to against claim ABD and Ward. If the Güilas proceedings; notice of the consequently none against failed to state a claim these defen rights of his were violated when he was not dants, may the district court have to consider notice; given simply person he was not a whether it will allow them to amend their aggrieved by ruling, the law. In so pleadings. Accordingly, we should allow the judge phrase “appellants used the lack stand- this, argument district court to address in the proceedings.” See, e.g., instance. Hudson United Nonetheless, adjudica- Gulla received a full Mortgage Bank Corp., v. Litenda tion of his in the state court because (3rd Cir.1998). 151, 159-60 notice, any his entitlement to hence violations reasons, foregoing thereof, For the inextricably vacate the were intertwined with a order of the April district court entered on person decision that he was neither a entitled 1997 and proceedings remand for further aggrieved by nor the law. Gulla opinion. consistent with this admits that the state court found “that state procedures were not (Appellant’s violated.” NYGAARD, Judge, dissenting. Circuit 3.) Br. at That is the essence and basis proceed- to notice of the subdivision I dissent I because believe the federal and ings, and which was affirmed on inextricably state claims are intertwined. By the Commonwealth concluding Court. Hence, majority’s holding contravenes may matter, that the district court rehear the permitting doctrine allowing we are a federal improperly court to a federal court to potentially review and con- secondary judgment sit in on a matter al- ruling tradict a general of a state court of ready If, decided a state court. on re- jurisdiction. mand, the district court decides that Gulla claim, gravamen of Gulla’s which is was entitled it will be determining in contained his in the Court of Com- the decision of the Washington mon County, Pennsylva- Pleas of wrong doing was and in so void its complaint nia in the Federal Court ruling something empowered it is not to do. — for the Pennsylvania, Western District of typical which, This is not a matter in be- essentially that he given was not the notice plaintiff cause the standing” pres- “lacked alleges which he he was entitled law claim, ent his his claim was neither heard nor concerning proceedings subdivision in North Here, decided on the merits. the merits are Township. inextricably intertwined “standing” with the Specifically, in Appeal his Notice of rulings and the state courts’ the decision of the Township Gulla is not entitled the ordinance to Supervisors, complained Gulla receive notice. day Gulla has received his he received no notice pro- of the subdivision court, and I think the district court was cess. doing Gulla so the give correct when it refused to him another supervisors violated Section 304 of the Town- one in federal court. I would affirm. ship subdivision development and land ordi- nance, which, among things, other dictates process it must followwhen it considers a

major request. He averred that result, pro- “violated due

Case Details

Case Name: Gulla v. North Strabane Township

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Date Published: Jun 8, 1998

Citation: 146 F.3d 168

Docket Number: 97-3302

Court Abbreviation: 3rd Cir.