Randall Winslow v. P. Stevens , 632 F. App'x 721 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 15-1496
    ___________
    RANDALL WINSLOW,
    Appellant
    v.
    P. J. STEVENS; J. LAZARUS; J. COLVILLE
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-04550)
    District Judge: Honorable Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    December 1, 2015
    Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and COWEN, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: December 2, 2015)
    ___________
    OPINION*
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Randall Winslow appeals pro se from the District Court’s dismissal of an action
    brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    Winslow was involved in a case before the Court of Common Pleas of Chester
    County in which he had hired an attorney. Winslow contends that the attorney had
    agreed to appeal his case but then failed to do so. Thereafter, Winslow pursued a pro se
    breach of contract case against that attorney. The Court of Common Pleas granted
    summary judgment in favor of Winslow’s lawyer on the ground that Winslow had failed
    to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3, which requires a certificate
    of merit in an action that claims a licensed professional deviated from an acceptable
    professional standard. One of Winslow’s arguments before the Court of Common Pleas
    was that Rule 1042.3 violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of
    the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Superior Court
    affirmed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied Winslow’s petition to appeal.
    Disappointed but undaunted, Winslow thought the federal courts might grant him
    the relief he sought. Accordingly, he brought a civil rights complaint in the United States
    District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the three Pennsylvania
    Superior Court judges that had decided his state appeal. Winslow’s federal complaint
    argued that Rule 1042.3 is unconstitutional, and sought, among other things, declaratory
    relief, a trial against his attorney in a county other than Chester County, and a “[p]roper
    proceeding for redress and remedy.” After briefing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss,
    the District Court dismissed Winslow’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
    and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Winslow thereafter
    attempted to file an amended complaint naming the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and
    2
    the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as defendants, but the District Court denied that
    attempt, stating that no case was pending. This appeal followed.
    We have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s order dismissing Winslow’s
    complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over a district court’s
    decision to grant a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
    12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of U.S., 
    677 F.3d 519
    ,
    529-30 (3d Cir. 2012). We construe Winslow’s pro se pleadings liberally, see Haines v.
    Kerner, 
    404 U.S. 519
    , 520 (1972), and may affirm the judgment on any basis that the
    record supports, see Murray v. Bledsoe, 
    650 F.3d 246
    , 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
    Multiple jurisdictional and pleading rules doom Winslow’s lawsuit, but we
    recognize our “independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction
    exists.” Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 
    546 U.S. 500
    , 514 (2006). To resolve this appeal, it
    suffices to rely on the following analysis.
    The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars certain “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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 
    544 U.S. 280
    , 284 (2005).
    Thus, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction over suits that are essentially appeals from
    state-court judgments[.]” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 
    615 F.3d 159
    , 165 (3d Cir. 2010). That rule applies to “challenges to state court decisions in
    particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the
    3
    state court’s action was unconstitutional.” District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
    Feldman, 
    460 U.S. 462
    , 486 (1983) “[T]here are four requirements that must be met for
    the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply: (1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the
    plaintiff ‘complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments’; (3) those
    judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting
    the district court to review and reject the state judgments.” Great W. Mining & Mineral
    
    Co., 615 F.3d at 166
    (quoting Exxon 
    Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284
    ) (alterations in original).
    Although Rooker-Feldman is a “narrow doctrine that applies only in limited
    circumstances,” 
    id. at 169
    (quotations omitted), there is no question that these four
    requirements apply to Winslow’s federal lawsuit. The only prerequisite that Winslow
    meaningfully disputes is the fourth one, as he characterizes his case as an independent
    constitutional challenge that does not require direct review and rejection of the state
    court’s judgment in his state suit against his lawyer. Here, there is nothing independent
    about Winslow’s federal claims. The Court of Common Pleas and the Superior Court
    each explicitly considered and rejected Winslow’s constitutional challenge to Rule
    1042.3.1 What Winslow seeks is an improper “review of the proceedings already
    conducted by the ‘lower’ tribunal to determine whether it reached its result in accordance
    1
    Winslow also argued before the District Court that Rule 1042.3 violated the Contract
    Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The state courts did not comment
    on that legal theory because, apparently, Winslow did not raise it during his state
    proceedings. That does not change the outcome here because Winslow may not “escape
    Rooker-Feldman by raising a new constitutional theory in federal court.” Valenti v.
    Mitchell, 
    962 F.2d 288
    , 296 (3d Cir. 1992).
    4
    with law”—i.e., that his case against his attorney should not have been dismissed because
    Rule 1042.3 is unconstitutional—as opposed to an independent claim that simply “denies
    a legal conclusion reached by the state court.” 
    Id. at 168-69.
    As a result, the District
    Court did not err in applying Rooker-Feldman to Winslow’s complaint and in dismissing
    his challenge to the judgment against him in his state case.
    That said, construing Winslow’s pleadings liberally, it is perhaps possible that he
    also sets out a facial challenge to Rule 1042.3 seeking a prospective declaration that the
    rule is unconstitutional, which would apply in future cases but would not disturb the
    dismissal of his prior state case against his attorney. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine
    would not bar such a challenge. See 
    Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486-87
    ; Centifanti v. Nix, 
    865 F.2d 1422
    , 1424-30 (3d Cir. 1989). But cf. Stern v. Nix, 
    840 F.2d 208
    , 212 (3d Cir.
    1988) (denying what was asserted to be a general challenge as a “skillful attempt to mask
    the true purpose of the action”).
    But even if we construe Winslow’s pleadings as such a challenge, we must still
    affirm the District Court’s judgment because Winslow lacks constitutional standing. The
    fact that Rooker-Feldman does not bar a particular claim does not itself imply that a
    plaintiff has standing to bring it. See Grendell v. Ohio Supreme Court, 
    252 F.3d 828
    ,
    836-38 (6th Cir. 2001). Here, Winslow lacks standing as there is no foreseeable prospect
    that Rule 1042.3 will bar some hypothetical future lawsuit he might assert against an
    attorney or other licensed professional. See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 
    461 U.S. 95
    ,
    97-113 (1983). Thus, there is no justiciable case or controversy involving Winslow and
    5
    Rule 1042.3. See Facio v. Jones, 
    929 F.2d 541
    , 544 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[A]fter separating
    out [plaintiff’s] impermissible request that the federal district court overturn the state
    judgment against him, his situation is indistinguishable from that of any other citizen of
    Utah who, without any palpable chance of being subjected to those procedures in the
    future, might desire to challenge that state’s default judgment rule.”); cf. also Brown v.
    Fauver, 
    819 F.2d 395
    , 399-400 (3d Cir. 1987) (plaintiff lacked standing to seek
    prospective relief when he could not pursue claims predicated upon past application of
    allegedly unconstitutional rule).2
    The remaining question is whether the District Court should have allowed
    Winslow to file an amended complaint, as Winslow attempt to do after the District Court
    had closed the case. See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 
    482 F.3d 247
    , 251 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[I]n civil rights cases district courts must offer
    amendment—irrespective of whether it is requested—when dismissing a case for failure
    to state a claim unless doing so would be inequitable or futile.”); Grayson v. Mayview
    State Hosp., 
    293 F.3d 103
    , 108 (3d Cir. 2002). In its opinion, the District Court did not
    explicitly consider whether Winslow should have had the opportunity to amend his
    complaint, or determine that amendment would have been inequitable or futile. But here,
    Winslow’s jurisdictional and standing deficiencies are incurable and any amendment
    2
    One consequence of this is that Winslow could not resuscitate his suit simply by suing
    the Justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who propagate rules like Rule 1042.3.
    6
    would indeed have been futile. As a result, we conclude that the District Court did not
    err in denying Winslow the opportunity to file an amended complaint.
    In light of the foregoing, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
    7