Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
1-11-2006
Kretchmar v. Bachtle
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 05-3084
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Kretchmar v. Bachtle" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1761.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1761
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 2006 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NOT PRECEDENTIAL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. 05-3084
________________
GARY L. KRETCHMAR,
Appellant
v.
PATRICIA L. BACHTLE, PROTHONOTARY, BUCKS COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA; G. THOMAS WILEY, COURT ADMINISTRATOR, BUCKS
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; JOHN OR JANE DOE
OFFICE OF PROTHONOTARY, BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA;
JOHN OR JANE DOE 1 OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; WARD F. CLARK, SENIOR
JUDGE, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA;
SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NUMBER, 3346
EDA 202, JUNE 5, 1003, ORDER; MARY JANE BOWES, JUDGE;
STEPHEN A. MCEWEN, JR., JUDGE;
CORREALE F. STEVENS, JUDGE; SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DOCKET NUMBER, 589 MAL 2003, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 ORDER;
RALPH J. CAPPY, CHIEF JUSTICE; RONALD D. CASTILLE, JUSTICE;
HONORABLE JUDGE J. MICHAEL EAKIN, JUSTICE;
WILLIAM H. LAMB, JUSTICE; RUSSELL M. NIGRO, JUSTICE;
SANDRA SCHULTZ NEWMAN, JUSTICE;
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE THOMAS SAYLOR, JUSTICE;
STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JUSTICE
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 04-cv-05124)
District Judge: Honorable J. Curtis Joyner
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 6, 2006
Before: BARRY, STAPLETON AND GREENBERG, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed January 11, 2006 )
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Gary Kretchmar appeals the District Court’s order granting appellees’ motions to
dismiss his complaint. Kretchmar filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. He alleged that
appellees improperly handled a petition for habeas corpus filed in the state courts. The
appellees filed motions to dismiss. The District Court concluded that review of several of
Kretchmar’s claims was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and that Kretchmar
failed to state a claim against appellees Wiley and Bachtle because he had not shown their
personal involvement in the alleged wrongful actions. Kretchmar filed a timely notice of
appeal and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Our review of the District Court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is
plenary. Parkview Assoc. Partnership v. City of Lebanon, 225 F.3d 321, 323 (3d Cir.
2000). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a federal district court of jurisdiction to
review, directly or indirectly, a state court adjudication. See D.C. Court of Appeals v.
2
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923).
The Supreme Court has explained that this doctrine applies to “cases brought by
state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before
the District Court proceedings commenced and inviting District Court review and
rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., __ U.S.
__ , 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521-22 (2005).
Here, Kretchmar alleged that appellees improperly processed his state habeas
corpus petition as a civil matter instead of as a criminal matter. After this petition was
denied in August 2002, Kretchmar refiled the state habeas petition in the criminal
division. That petition was denied in October 2002. On appeal, the Superior Court
rejected Kretchmar’s argument that the Court of Common Pleas incorrectly processed his
petition. Krecthmar raised this issue in a petition for allowance of appeal which the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied in February 2004. In November 2004, Kretchmar
filed the instant complaint in the District Court. He complains of injuries caused by state-
court judgments rendered before he filed his federal complaint. He clearly seeks to have
the federal courts review and reject those state-court judgments. Thus, federal review of
Kretchmar’s claims is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will
affirm the District Court’s June 8, 2005 order. The appellees’ motion to be excused from
filing a brief is granted.
3