F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 21 2000
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
ROLAND S. WEAVER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 99-3394
(D.C. No. 99-CV-4052-RDR)
CARLA STOVALL, Attorney General (D. Kan.)
of the State of Kansas; JOHN
CASSIDY; M. J. WILLOUGHBY;
THOMAS R. CONKLIN, Judge of
Division 13, Shawnee County District
Court; TERRY BULLOCK; JAN
LEUENBERGER,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK , KELLY , and HENRY , 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
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.
Plaintiff Roland S. Weaver, Jr. brought this action alleging the improper
seizure of his vehicles and related activities in violation of his constitutional
rights and federal and state statutes including the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. The district court determined that plaintiff’s claims
against Kansas Attorney General Stovall and assistant attorneys general Cassidy
and Willoughby were barred by Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibits, in circumstances like these, the filing of a lawsuit in federal court, and
that the claims against Judges Conklin, Bullock and Leuenberger, who are state
court judges in Shawnee County, Kansas, were barred by judicial immunity. The
court also determined that plaintiff’s claims were barred under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine to the extent he was seeking review of the final judgment of a
state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983).
It denied his request for injunctive relief as moot. The court therefore dismissed
plaintiff’s complaint. He now appeals and requests leave to proceed in forma
pauperis.
Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. We review
the district court’s decision to dismiss on Eleventh Amendment, judicial
-2-
immunity, and Rooker-Feldman grounds de novo. See Powder River Basin
Resource Council v. Babbitt , 54 F.3d 1477, 1483 (10th Cir. 1995) (Eleventh
Amendment); Hunt v. Bennett , 17 F.3d 1263, 1265 (10th Cir. 1994) (judicial
immunity); Kiowa Indian Tribe v. Hoover , 150 F.3d 1163, 1165 (10th Cir. 1998)
(Rooker-Feldman ). We have considered plaintiff’s arguments and reviewed the
record, and we are not persuaded that the district court erred in dismissing
plaintiff’s complaint. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons as stated in
the district court’s September 15, 1999 memorandum and order, which is
attached, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall
issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Robert H. Henry
Circuit Judge
-3-
Attachment not available electronically.