F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 30 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MORRIS MYERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-4161
(D.C. No. 97-CV-822-C)
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT (D. Utah)
COURT; SALT LAKE COUNTY;
STATE OF UTAH; WILLIAM B.
BOHLING, Judge, Third Judicial
District Court,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
MUTUAL MORTGAGE SERVICES,
Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before PORFILIO , BARRETT , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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 appeal is taken from the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s action
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claimed that the defendants
violated his constitutional rights by entering a state court judgment for judicial
foreclosure of a promissory note and trust deed in favor of Mutual Mortgage
Services, Inc., intervenor/appellee in this action. We have jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
In an earlier appeal, we affirmed the district court’s entry of a preliminary
injunction in favor of Mutual Mortgage Services, Inc., see Myers v. Third Judicial
Dist. Court , No. 97-4201, 1998 WL 438635 (10th Cir. July 14, 1998)
(unpublished order and judgment), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 874 (1999), finding
that appeal to be both frivolous and abusive. Id. at **3. We also noted that this
action is in essence a challenge to a state court decision with which plaintiff
disagrees, and over which federal courts lack jurisdiction. See District of
Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S. Ct. 1303,
75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Van Sickle v. Holloway , 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 (10th Cir.
1986). Id.
-2-
The district court subsequently dismissed the action, recognizing its lack of
jurisdiction to review the final judgment of a state court. We review the district
court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. See Kiowa
Indian Tribe of Okla. v. Hoover , 150 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1998).
Review of decisions of state courts is barred by the doctrine of
Rooker -Feldman . See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 414-16 (1923);
Feldman , 460 U.S. at 482. This is true even if the challenge to judicial
proceedings alleges “that the state court’s action was unconstitutional. Review of
those decisions may be had only in [the Supreme] Court.” Feldman , 460 U.S. at
486. Moreover, Feldman prohibits not only direct review of state court judgments
by lower federal courts, it also prohibits “those federal courts from issuing any
declaratory relief that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court judgment.”
Facio v. Jones , 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 1991) (quoting Feldman , 460 U.S.
at 482 n.16).
Mr. Myers’s argument that the decision he is challenging as
unconstitutional was issued by the Utah Court of Appeals, not the Utah Supreme
Court, does not change the fundamental principle that the losing party “in state
court is barred 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
-3-
Grandy , 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994); see also Anderson v. Colorado , 793 F.2d
262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986) (“It is well settled that federal courts are without
authority to review state court judgments where the relief sought is in the nature
of appellate review.”).
The district court correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain
this action.
AFFIRMED . The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
James E. Barrett
Senior Circuit Judge
-4-