99-3394 -- Weaver v. Stovall -- 08/21/2000

(12025 bytes)

(9016 bytes)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ROLAND S. WEAVER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

CARLA STOVALL, Attorney General of the State of Kansas; JOHN CASSIDY; M. J. WILLOUGHBY; THOMAS R. CONKLIN, Judge of Division 13, Shawnee County District Court; TERRY BULLOCK; JAN LEUENBERGER,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 99-3394

(D.C. No. 99-CV-4052-RDR)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT^(*)

Before BALDOCK, KELLY, and HENRY, 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.

Plaintiff Roland S. Weaver, Jr. brought this action alleging the improper seizure of his vehicles and related activities in violation of his constitutional rights and federal and state statutes including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The district court determined that plaintiff's claims against Kansas Attorney General Stovall and assistant attorneys general Cassidy and Willoughby were barred by Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits, in circumstances like these, the filing of a lawsuit in federal court, and that the claims against Judges Conklin, Bullock and Leuenberger, who are state court judges in Shawnee County, Kansas, were barred by judicial immunity. The court also determined that plaintiff's claims were barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to the extent he was seeking review of the final judgment of a state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983). It denied his request for injunctive relief as moot. The court therefore dismissed plaintiff's complaint. He now appeals and requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. We review the district court's decision to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment, judicial immunity, and Rooker-Feldman grounds de novo. See Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Babbitt, 54 F.3d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh Amendment); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1994) (judicial immunity); Kiowa Indian Tribe v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1998) (Rooker-Feldman). We have considered plaintiff's arguments and reviewed the record, and we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's complaint. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons as stated in the district court's September 15, 1999 memorandum and order, which is attached, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge

Attachment not available electronically.

FOOTNOTES
Click footnote number to return to corresponding location in the text.

^*. This order and judgment 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.

(12025 bytes)

(9016 bytes)

Comments to: WebMaster, ca10 [at] washburnlaw.edu.
Updated: August 22, 2000.
HTML markup © 2000, Washburn University School of Law.
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2000/08/99-3394.htm.