Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-20-2005
McAllister v. Alghny Cty Family
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-3197
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"McAllister v. Alghny Cty Family" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 1331.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/1331
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 04-3197
________________
LENNY MCALLISTER,
Appellant
v.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY FAMILY DIVISION;
MICHAEL A. DELLA VECCHIA, JUDGE;
KIM EATON, JUDGE; DENISE BUTIFINI
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
District Judge: Honorable Thomas M. Hardiman
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-00445)
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
APRIL 19, 2005
Before: SLOVITER, BARRY AND FISHER, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: April 20, 2005)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Lenny McAllister, commenced this pro se action in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, naming as defendants the Family
Division of the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas; Judges Della
Vecchia and Eaton of that Court; and Denise Bufalini, a Court Domestic Relations
Officer for Custody Conciliation. The crux of McAllister’s Complaint is that the
defendants violated his federal constitutional rights through various actions taken and
orders entered in a child-custody litigation between McAllister and his ex-wife.
McAllister sought damages.
Defendant Bufalini filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). By Order entered July 1, 2004, the District
Court granted Bufalini’s motion, and also dismissed the claims as to the remaining
defendants sua sponte. The District Court concluded that abstention was warranted under
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1977), insofar as the child-custody litigation remained
on-going. The District Court concluded, moreover, that it lacked jurisdiction pursuant to
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the issues presented are “inextricably intertwined” with
the state court adjudication.1 Finally, the District Court determined that even if it had
jurisdiction, the defendants are entitled to a finding of absolute judicial immunity.
McAllister timely filed this appeal. We have appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291. Because we find no error in the dismissal under Rooker-Feldman, we do
not reach the District Court’s alternative rulings. Our review of a dismissal for want of
jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman is plenary. Gulla v. North Strabane Tp., 146 F.3d
1
See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983), and
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
2
168, 171 (3d Cir. 1998).
“[T]he fundamental principle of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine [is] that a federal
district court may not sit as an appellate court to adjudicate appeals of state court
proceedings.” Port Auth. Police Benevolent Assoc., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. and N.J.
Police Dep’t, 973 F.2d 169, 179 (3d Cir. 1992). Here, although couched as an action
against the named defendants for damages, McAllister plainly seeks to void or overturn
adverse rulings entered in the child-custody litigation by the Allegheny County Court of
Common Pleas. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “prohibits District Courts from
adjudicating actions in which the relief requested requires determining whether the state
court’s decision is wrong or voiding the state court’s ruling.” Desi's Pizza, Inc. v. City of
Wilkes-Barre, 321 F.3d 411, 419 (3d Cir. 2003). Stated another way, “Rooker-Feldman
does not allow a plaintiff to seek relief that, if granted, would prevent a state court from
enforcing its orders.” Id. at 422.
The relief McAllister seeks can only be predicated upon a finding that the state
court has made incorrect factual and legal determinations in entering its orders. Indeed,
McAllister’s sole focus on this appeal is to challenge orders entered by the state court and
to question that court’s jurisdiction. Appellant’s Br. at 2-4. As such, the District Court
properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over McAllister’s Complaint. Finally, we note
that because Rooker-Feldman concerns a federal court’s power to hear a case, the District
Court properly raise the issue on its own motion. See, e.g., Johnson v. City of
3
Shorewood, Minnesota, 360 F.3d 810, 818 (8th Cir. 2004).
For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s judgment.
4