English v. Meacham , 24 F. App'x 897 ( 2001 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 29 2001
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
KENNETH LEROY ENGLISH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 01-4137
CHARLOTTE MEACHAM, Hearing (D.C. No. 2:01-CV-328-S)
Officer, Division Child Family Services, (D. Utah)
State of Utah; ROBIN ARNOLD-
WILLIAMS, Director, Department of
Human Services, State of Utah,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HENRY, BRISCOE and MURPHY, 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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. 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 Kenneth L. English, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s
dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We exercise
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.
Plaintiff filed this civil rights action on May 7, 2001. The complaint, allegedly
based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, named two defendants: Charlotte Meacham, a
hearing officer employed by the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) for the
State of Utah, and Robin Arnold-Williams, the director of the Department of Human
Services (DHS) for the State of Utah. According to the complaint, DCFS determined on
two separate occasions in the early 1990s that plaintiff was substantially responsible for
sexually abusing children and, accordingly, placed this information in its management
information database.1 Plaintiff challenged those determinations in 1998. After
conducting an administrative hearing on the matter, defendant Meacham issued a written
order overturning one of the determinations of sexual abuse, but affirming the other.
After DHS allegedly denied plaintiff’s request for a new administrative hearing, plaintiff
filed a petition for judicial review in state district court. Plaintiff’s petition was
subsequently transferred to state juvenile court pursuant to amendments to the state
1
Plaintiff’s pleadings appear to confuse the DCFS database with the State of
Utah’s sex offender registration database. In J.J.W. v. State, 33 P.3d 59, 61 n.2 (Utah Ct.
App. 2001), the Utah Court of Appeals explained that, “[u]nlike the sex offender
registration database, . . . the information contained in [DCFS’ database] is neither
accessible by the general public nor is it considered public information.” Instead,
“[i]nformation contained in [DCFS’ database] is used primarily for the management of
DCFS cases and licensing purposes.” Id.2
judicial review statute enacted by the Utah legislature in 1999. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-
46b-15 (1999). Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that the state juvenile
court ultimately denied plaintiff’s petition for judicial review. Plaintiff’s federal
complaint sought the removal of his name from the DCFS database, compensatory and
punitive damages for the allegedly wrongful conduct of defendants Meacham and
Arnold-Williams, and a declaration that the 1999 amendments to the state judicial review
statute were unconstitutional (at least as applied to his petition for judicial review).
Defendant Arnold-Williams responded to plaintiff’s complaint by filing a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).2 Arnold-Williams asserted a host of
arguments, including that (1) plaintiff’s complaint was precluded on res judicata grounds,
(2) she was entitled to qualified immunity, (3) she was absolutely immune for her acts or
omissions as executive director of the DHS, and (4) under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to effectively overrule the state court’s
denial of plaintiff’s petition for judicial review. The district court subsequently granted
Arnold-Williams’ motion “for the reasons generally outlined” therein. ROA, Doc. 10 at
2.
Reviewing the district court’s decision de novo, see Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for
the Deaf & Blind, 173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999), we conclude that plaintiff’s
2
According to the record, defendant Meacham was never properly served, and
thus has never appeared in the case.
3
complaint failed to state a claim against Arnold-Williams for which relief could be
granted. Unlike his allegations against defendant Meacham, which are relatively detailed,
plaintiff’s complaint is almost void of any specific allegations of misconduct on the part
of Arnold-Williams. At most, the complaint suggests that Arnold-Williams was
somehow involved in the denial of plaintiff’s request for a new administrative hearing in
1998, and subsequently lobbied the Utah legislature to amend the judicial review statute
in 1999 to have DCFS determinations of abuse reviewed by state juvenile courts rather
than state district courts. Even assuming these allegations are true, we fail to see how
they resulted in a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.
Further, we conclude the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibited the district court
from exercising jurisdiction over the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief asserted
in plaintiff’s complaint. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman
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
party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v.
De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Under the doctrine, a federal district court
cannot review matters actually decided by a state court, or provide relief that is
“inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482
n.16. “A claim is inextricably intertwined if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent
4
that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Charchenko v. City of
Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 983 (8th Cir. 1995). Here, it would be impossible for the district
court to issue an order directing the removal of plaintiff’s name from the DCFS database,
or to declare unconstitutional the 1999 amendments to the state judicial review statute,
without calling into question the judgment of the state juvenile court denying plaintiff’s
petition for judicial review. Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars any such claims for
relief.
Finally, plaintiff has filed with this court a motion to “discover” unconstitutional
the Child Abuse and Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5106a (what plaintiff refers to as
“The Mondale Act”). We refuse to grant that motion, not only because it was never
presented to the district court, but because it is, in any event, patently frivolous.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Plaintiff’s motion to “Discover
‘The Mondale Act’ Unconstitutional” is DENIED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
5