Foster v. Duval

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Case No. CIV-16-1089-D

Judges

Timothy D. DeGiusti

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, Bailey M. Foster, initiated this lawsuit challenging certain custody and visitation determinations made in her state divorce proceedings in Oklahoma County District Court. Specifically, the state court granted custody of her minor child to her ex-husband and suspended her visitation rights. The Plaintiff’s original complaint was dismissed for being verbose, rambling, and unclear, and she was ordered to file an amended complaint complying with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Plaintiff filed an amended complaint that failed to cure the deficiencies and instead increased the volume of submissions by attaching numerous materials, including films, books, binders, and photographs. The Court further questioned its subject matter jurisdiction over the claims presented. Consequently, the Court considered dismissal of the case without prejudice.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s claims that challenge state court custody and visitation orders.
Whether Plaintiff’s amended complaint complies with the pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a).
Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes federal jurisdiction over claims seeking review and rejection of state court judgments in divorce proceedings.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007)	Liberal construction of pro se pleadings.	The Court applied this principle to construe Plaintiff’s filings liberally due to her pro se status.
United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009)	Liberal construction of pro se pleadings.	Supported the Court’s approach to interpret Plaintiff’s submissions with leniency.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005)	Court is not responsible for acting as an attorney or constructing arguments for pro se litigants.	Justified the Court’s refusal to develop Plaintiff’s legal theories or arguments.
Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 1997)	Court will not supply additional factual allegations or construct legal theories for plaintiff.	Supported the Court’s stance in declining to supplement Plaintiff’s complaint.
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106 (10th Cir. 1991)	Limits on judicial supplementation of pro se complaints.	Reinforced the Court’s discretion not to supply missing factual allegations.
PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2010)	Explanation and scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.	Guided the Court’s determination that federal jurisdiction was precluded over claims intertwined with state court judgments.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005)	Clarification of the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.	Supported the Court’s conclusion that the doctrine applies only to cases seeking review of state court judgments.
Kanth v. Lubeck, 123 F. App'x 921 (10th Cir. 2005)	Application of Rooker-Feldman to federal claims intertwined with state divorce proceedings.	Served as a direct precedent illustrating dismissal of federal claims seeking reversal of state custody orders.
Kenmen Eng'g v. City of Union, 314 F.3d 468 (10th Cir. 2002)	Determining whether federal claims are inextricably intertwined with state court orders.	Used to affirm that claims seeking reversal of state court rulings are barred by Rooker-Feldman.
Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2006)	Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice.	Justified the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by noting the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s original complaint and the failure of the amended complaint to remedy them, particularly its excessive length and lack of clarity. It emphasized the obligation to construe pro se pleadings liberally but clarified that it would not act as Plaintiff’s attorney or supply missing factual or legal arguments.

The Court identified the core issue as a lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which precludes federal courts from exercising appellate jurisdiction over state court judgments or claims inextricably intertwined with such judgments. Plaintiff’s claims challenge the custody and visitation orders issued by the state court and seek relief that would effectively overturn those rulings.

Drawing on the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Kanth v. Lubeck, the Court found Plaintiff’s federal claims to be similarly intertwined with state court judgments and thus barred from federal review. The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s clarification in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. to reinforce the narrow scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case without prejudice, as dismissal with prejudice would preclude Plaintiff from pursuing claims in a proper forum. The Court referenced Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp. to support this procedural requirement.

Holding and Implications

The Court’s final decision is that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This dismissal means Plaintiff may refile her claims in a proper state or federal forum if jurisdictional requirements are met. The Court’s ruling does not establish new legal precedent but enforces existing jurisdictional doctrines, particularly the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, to maintain the proper division of authority between state and federal courts.

Show full summary ...

BAILEY M. FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. ERIC JOHN DUVAL, et al., Defendants.

TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER

On October 12, 2016, the Court entered an order [Doc. No. 19] instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), as her original complaint was verbose, rambling, and unclear. Id. at 3. The Court warned Plaintiff that failure to fully comply with the Court's Order would result in the dismissal of her lawsuit without prejudice. Id. at 4. In response, Plaintiff has provided this Court with an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 25], which cures none of the defects in her original complaint. In fact, Plaintiff has multiplied the length of her complaint by submitting multiple attachments. Moreover, Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not alleviate the Court's primary concern that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff's action should be dismissed without prejudice.

Such attachments consist of two compact discs of a film entitled "Detestable," three books about human trafficking and abuse, six spiral binders on "Gang Stalking" and "The American Police State," and one three-ring binder containing numerous photographs depicting what Plaintiff alleges to be evidence of child abuse.

Because Plaintiff appears pro se, the Court construes her filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009). The Court, however, cannot take on the responsibility of serving as Plaintiff's attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the Court "will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf." Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)).

As previously noted, Plaintiff's complaint arises from certain findings made in her divorce proceedings in Oklahoma County District Court; namely, the district court's decision to grant custody of her minor child to her ex-husband and suspend her visitation rights. "Generally, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes lower federal courts 'from effectively exercising appellate jurisdiction over claims actually decided by a state court and claims inextricably intertwined with a prior state-court judgment.'" PJ ex rel. Jensen v. Wagner, 603 F.3d 1182, 1193 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Mo's Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229, 1233 (10th Cir. 2006)). "The Supreme Court recently clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker- Feldman doctrine, stating that it is 'confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.'" Id. (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)).

In Kanth v. Lubeck, 123 F. App'x 921 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished), the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that his civil rights were violated during the course of his Utah state divorce proceedings. The complaint requested the federal court to, among other things, assume jurisdiction over the state divorce proceedings, dismiss the Utah divorce decree, and restore to him full custodial and visitation rights to his two minor children. The plaintiff named as defendants numerous Utah state and appellate court judges, commissioners, three attorneys in the Utah Office of Guardian Ad Litem, the Utah Attorney General, and the Director of the Utah Department of Human Services, and attempted to amend the complaint to include his ex-wife, her parents, and her attorney as defendants.

After the district court dismissed his complaint, the plaintiff appealed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal. The court, in applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, looked to the requested relief and determined whether the state court judgment caused, actually and proximately, the injury for which the federal complaint sought redress. Id. at 924. In doing so, it found that "[d]espite his attempt to characterize his federal complaint as one seeking to vindicate his federal constitutional rights, the relief [plaintiff] seeks is a reversal of the Utah state courts' rulings against him and an award of custodial and visitation rights to his children. Any federal claims are inextricably intertwined with those orders." Id. (citing Kenmen Eng'g v. City of Union, 314 F.3d 468, 476-77 (10th Cir. 2002)).

Likewise, although Plaintiff attempts to allege multiple violations of federal law, it is clear Plaintiff is seeking review and rejection of the state court orders in her divorce proceedings. Plaintiff alleges the defendants, who include her ex-husband, his attorney, the presiding judge, and the court-appointed guardian ad litem, conspired to deprive her of her parental rights. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, emergency protective custody of her child and an "immediate federal investigation ... into the unconstitutional and criminal conduct of the state and state actors" involved in her case. Amend. Compl. at 14 (emphasis omitted). As in Kanth, any federal claims are inextricably intertwined with those rulings. The Court, however, does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such claims.

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff's Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 25] should be, and is hereby, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

A dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction must be without prejudice because "the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims." Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted, emphasis in original). --------

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 day of November, 2016.

/s/_________

TIMOTHY D. DEGIUSTI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE