Young v. Conejos County Board of County Commissioners

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MAY 29 2003
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ERNEST WELDON YOUNG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 02-1559
(D.C. No. 02-N-2149 (BNB))
CONEJOS COUNTY BOARD OF (D. Colorado)
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; ROBERT
L. BAGWELL; GORDON J. BOSA;
STEPHANE WALTER ATENCIO,
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This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,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 court’s dismissal of
his action for lack of jurisdiction. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291and 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 Young’s filings with this court, the district court’s
order, and the record on appeal. We agree that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
review purported constitutional violations caused by the state court’s order. See Kiowa
Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1169 (10th Cir. 1998) (“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.”
(Internal quotation omitted.)).
2
AFFIRMED. Appellees’ motion to strike appellant’s response to answer brief is
DENIED as moot.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
3