Rokowski v. Gilbert , 319 F. App'x 702 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 13, 2009
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court
JACEK ROKOWSKI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 08-2220
(D.C. No. 6:07-CV-01123-JAP-LAM)
SHARON LYNN ROKOWSKI, (D. N.M.)
Defendant,
and
MARK ALAN GILBERT;
AMY EVANS GILBERT,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and ANDERSON, 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 and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
This appeal comes to us from an order of the district court dismissing Jacek
Rokowski’s complaint based on various New Mexico domestic relations statutes
and the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-611, 94 Stat.
3568 (codified in part at 28 U.S.C. § 1738A). Mr. Rokowski’s claims arise from
the termination of his parental rights as to his daughter (the Child) and the
adoption of the Child by defendants Mark and Amy Gilbert. The district court
construed Mr. Rokowski’s pro se complaint as seeking a declaratory judgment for
the following relief: 1) that the adoption of the Child be declared void; 2) that
New Mexico courts assume jurisdiction of the Child; 3) that charges be brought
against defendants; and 4) that the court award monetary damages to Rokowski.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that, because issues
surrounding the termination of Rokowski’s parental rights and the Child’s
adoption had already been fully adjudicated in the courts of Georgia, Rokowski’s
claims were barred by collateral estoppel. The district court agreed and dismissed
the complaint.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm substantially
for the reasons given by the district court. Rokowski’s claims are barred by
collateral estoppel given the decision of the Georgia Court of Appeals on the
merits of his claims. See Rokowski v. Gilbert, 620 S.E.2d 509 (Ga. App. 2005),
cert. denied, Jan. 17, 2006. The collateral estoppel effect of the Georgia decision
encompasses Rokowski’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Georgia courts based
-2-
on his claim that the Child had been taken illegally from New Mexico to Georgia
by defendants. The Georgia Court of Appeals specifically held that, for various
reasons, “[t]he trial court did not err in ruling that it had subject matter and
personal jurisdiction.” Id. at 518. The affirmance by the Georgia Court of
Appeals of the order issued by the trial court permitting defendants to adopt the
Child precludes Rokowski from relitigating the propriety of the adoption
including his claim of illegal transport and/or kidnapping.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
John C. Porfilio
Circuit Judge
-3-