Young v. Conejos County Board, 10th Cir. (2003)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsYoung v. Conejos County Board, 10th Cir. (2003)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsF I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
MAY 29 2003
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ERNEST WELDON YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CONEJOS COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; ROBERT
L. BAGWELL; GORDON J. BOSA;
STEPHANE WALTER ATENCIO,
No. 02-1559
(D.C. No. 02-N-2149 (BNB))
(D. Colorado)
Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before KELLY, BRISCOE and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
submitted without oral argument.
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders
and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
*
Plaintiff Ernest Young, appearing pro se, appeals the district courts dismissal of
his action for lack of jurisdiction. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291
and affirm.
The Conejos County District Court entered a default judgment against Young for
several violations of the Conejos County land use ordinance. Young failed to comply
with the judgment and the court held him in contempt. Instead of challenging that ruling
within the state court system, Young filed in federal district court a Verified Complaint
to Vacate a Void Order and Judgment and various motions alleging constitutional
violations. The district court dismissed the action sua sponte, relying upon the
Rooker/Feldman doctrine. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
We have carefully reviewed Youngs filings with this court, the district courts
order, and the record on appeal. We agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
review purported constitutional violations caused by the state courts order. See Kiowa
Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir. 1998) (The RookerFeldman doctrine bars a party losing in state court from seeking what in substance would
be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the
losing partys claim that the state judgment itself violates the losers federal rights.
(Internal quotation omitted.)).
AFFIRMED. Appellees motion to strike appellants response to answer brief is
DENIED as moot.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
You might also like
- No ratings yetRoger E. Williams Herber Hammon Beth Peterson Connell J. Bateman Jesse Beagley Benjamin G. Bistline James B. Blackmore Harold W. Blackmore Florence Blackmore Cyril Bradshaw Alma J. Burnham Claude S. Cooke Donald B. Cox Earline Cox Harvey J. Dockstader Leah K. Dockstader T. David Dockstader Boyd Dockstader Marko J. Dutson George Hammon Jacob Legrande Hammon Earl Johnson James M. Pipkin Cora Fischer Stubbs David L. Stubbs John Timpson Ray Timpson Don Timpson Fayila Maureen Blackmore Williams John M. Williams Charles Williams Thomas J. Williams Joyce Blackmore Ellen Boehmer Carol Anderson, and John and Jane Does 1 Through 1000 v. United Effort Plan, a Utah Trust Rulon T. Jeffs Fred M. Jessop Leroy S. Jeffs Parley J. Harker James K. Zitting Winston K. Blackmore Truman I. Barlow Individually and as Trustees for the United Effort Plan Trust, and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and City of Hildale, a Municipality City of Colorado City, a Municipality Washington4 pages
