F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS
October 5, 2006
FO R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JIM TATUM ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 05-1549
(D.C. No. 05-cv-669-PSF-PAC)
H A RO LD D . (H A L) SIM PSO N; (D . Colo.)
STEVEN J. W ITTE; HENRY
DA NIEL (DA NN Y) M AR QU EZ;
JOH N SUTHERS; TAN YA T. LIGH T;
JOH N J. CY RA N; PAUL L.
BENINGTON; DENNIS M AES; and
D A N CO RSEN TIN O ,
Defendants-Appellees.
OR D ER AND JUDGM ENT *
Before H E N RY, A ND ER SO N, and M cCO NNELL, 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not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,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-appellant Jim Tatum appeals the order of the district court
granting summary judgment to defendant Pueblo Colorado County Sheriff Dan
Corsentino and dismissing the action as to the remaining defendants for lack of
jurisdiction. W e affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Plaintiff suffered an adverse judgment in a Colorado water court and was
briefly jailed by that court for contempt. W hile the water case was pending
before the Colorado Supreme Court, plaintiff filed this action in federal district
court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged various civil rights violations as
a result of the water litigation and separately alleged that defendant Corsentino
denied him medical treatment while he was in custody.
The district court granted summary judgment to Sheriff Corsentino, finding
that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any personal participation on the part of
the Sheriff or even any knowledge on the Sheriff’s part of plaintiff’s medical
needs. The court further held that, because plaintiff offered no evidence of any
affirmative link between the constitutional deprivation and either the Sheriff’s
personal participation or his failure to supervise, there could be no personal
liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Plaintiff’s failure to advance
any evidence of an unconstitutional county policy or custom regarding the
medical needs of county detainees doomed his claim against Sheriff Corsentino in
his official capacity. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, Simms v.
Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321,
-2-
1326 (10th Cir. 1999), and affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the
district court.
To the extent plaintiff challenges the district court’s decision to stay
discovery pending a ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, we find
no abuse of discretion in that action. See GWN Petroleum Corp. v. OK-Tex Oil &
Gas, Inc., 998 F.2d 853, 858 (10th Cir. 1993).
W e now turn to the district court’s conclusion that it lacked subject-matter
jurisdiction over the claims against the remaining defendants because of the
operation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a determination we review de novo.
U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani, 182 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999).
Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Exxon M obil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), federal courts applied the Rooker-Feldman
bar to all state court decisions, final or otherw ise. Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d
1027, 1031 (10th Cir. 2006). Exxon M obil, however, clarified that
Rooker-Feldman applies only to suits in federal court “filed after state
proceedings are final.” Guttman, 446 F.3d at 1032. In this case, plaintiff’s state
water court case was pending in the Colorado Supreme Court when he filed his
federal complaint. Thus, his state court case was not final, and Rooker-Feldman
does not bar jurisdiction in the federal district court. See id. (holding that
Rooker-Feldman did not bar federal jurisdiction over a case where a petition for
certiorari was pending before the New M exico Supreme Court). Due to the
-3-
factual nature of the claims and defenses raised, this case must be remanded to
the district court for consideration of the issues in the first instance.
The state defendant-appellees’ unopposed motion for leave to file
a surreply is G RANTED. The judgment of the district court is A FFIRM ED in
part, REVERSED in part, and REM ANDED for further proceedings in accordance
with this order and judgment.
Entered for the Court
M ichael W . M cConnell
Circuit Judge
-4-