Phillip Rousseau v. Howard County, Maryland
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-01079-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998572870].. [10-1016]
Case: 10-1016
Document: 56
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1016
PHILLIP ROUSSEAU; CARVEL MAYS, JR.; FRANK MARTIN; PAUL F.
KENDALL,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; PAUL JOHNSON, Individually and in
his Official Capacity as Deputy County Solicitor; LYNN
ROBESON, Individually and in her Official Capacity as
Assistant
County
Solicitor;
MARSHA
S.
MCLAUGHLIN,
Individually and in her Official Capacity as Director,
Department
of
Planning
and
Zoning;
ROBIN
REGNER,
Individually and in her Official Capacity as Administrative
Assistant to Hearing Examiner and Board of Appeals; LISA
KENNY, Individually and in her Official Capacity as
Administrative Assistant to the Director, Department of
Planning & Zoning; MICHELE L. LEFAIVRE, Individually and in
her Official Capacity as Board of Appeals Hearing Examiner,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(1:09-cv-01079-JFM)
Argued:
January 25, 2011
Decided:
April 21, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Case: 10-1016
Document: 56
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 2
ARGUED:
Susan Baker Gray, Highland, Maryland, for Appellants.
Melissa Shane Whipkey, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott
City, Maryland, for Appellees.
ON BRIEF:
Margaret Ann Nolan,
County Solicitor, Louis P. Ruzzi, Senior Assistant County
Solicitor, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
Case: 10-1016
Document: 56
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 3
PER CURIAM:
Four residents and voters (“Residents”) of Howard County,
Maryland, commenced this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
Howard
County
and
five
of
its
officers
in
their
individual
capacities, alleging numerous Fourteenth Amendment due process
and
equal
protection
administrative
and
violations
judicial
with
respect
proceedings.
The
to
state
district
court
dismissed the claims, finding that three of the residents had
impermissibly split their claims between two cases and that the
fourth did not have standing.
We
affirm
the
This appeal followed.
judgment
of
the
district
court,
but
we
conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear
this
case
under
Rooker
v.
Fidelity
Trust
Co.,
263
U.S.
413
(1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462 (1983).
The Residents allege “numerous due process violations . . .
at the hands of various county Board[]s and agencies, and their
attorneys and staff” during “the county’s administrative review”
process.
proposed
Many
of
these
development
decisions
projects
and
were
land
in
use.
the
contexts
The
of
complaint
“challenges these actions, as well as the statutorily prescribed
process
in
which
most
of
these
actions
occurred
as
being
fundamentally unfair and designed to ensure those participating
in these processes will have no chance of being heard.”
3
The
Case: 10-1016
Document: 56
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
Page: 4
Residents allege that “each of them suffered harm to a protected
interest
as
a
result
of
the
pattern
and
practice
of
Howard
County to deny them due process in county administrative review
and ‘appeals’ processes by a deliberate failure to follow rules,
outright perversion of the process by various means including
fraud, misrepresentation and collusion between the county and
the developers, and by inherent structural defects in the law
preventing
any
sufficient
or
legitimate
constitutionally adequate due process.”
process,
let
alone,
They contend that their
due process and equal protection rights were violated in the
course of many hearings and proceedings, including hearings by
the Howard County Board of Appeals and proceedings in Maryland
state courts.
They characterize their claims as “a challenge to
the conduct of administrative proceedings and decisions” at the
county level.
On
appeal,
the
Residents
argue
erroneously dismissed their claims.
that
the
district
court
With respect to the claims
of three Residents, Kendall, Martin, and Rousseau, which were
dismissed for claim splitting, they argue that “[t]he series of
transactions or core operative facts in [this case] arise from a
number
of
independent
administrative
hearings,
decisions,
defective administrative processes in those hearings, or failure
to hold administrative hearings or give notice of decisions,”
none of which they contend were implicated by the related case
4
Case: 10-1016
Document: 56
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
which arose out of the same transactions.
respect
to
the
fourth
Resident,
Mays,
Page: 5
And they argue with
that
he
had
standing
because “plaintiffs have standing to bring suit if they allege a
diminution of their right to vote.”
We do not reach the Residents’ arguments, however, because
we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear
this case under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
complaint
asks
that
lower
federal
courts
in
The Residents’
effect
exercise
appellate review over numerous state administrative and judicial
decisions, and under our system of federalism, the lower federal
courts
lack
jurisdiction
state
administrative
to
and
sit
as
judicial
explicit statutory authorization.
Feldman,
460
U.S.
462;
appellate
Exxon
tribunals
decisionmakers,
over
absent
See Rooker, 263 U.S. 413;
Mobil
Corp.
v.
Saudi
Basic
Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2004) (holding that lower
federal
courts
lack
jurisdiction
to
hear
“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”).
Parties aggrieved by state administrative
and judicial decisions must pursue review in state appellate
tribunals, with the ultimate opportunity to petition the Supreme
Court of the United States for review.
544 U.S. at 291-92.
See Exxon Mobil Corp.,
We note that decisions of the Howard County
5
Case: 10-1016
Planning
Board
can
Document: 56
be
Date Filed: 04/21/2011
appealed
to
the
Howard
Page: 6
County
Hearing
Examiner, with further appeals to the Howard County Board of
Appeals and the state court system, beginning with the Circuit
Court for Howard County.
See, e.g., Howard County Code, Rules
of Procedure of the Board of Appeals, § 2.211(e) (providing for
appeal
County).
from
Board
of
Appeals
to
Circuit
Court
for
Howard
Indeed, the Residents acknowledge the existence of
this process.
They simply contest its sufficiency.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment
of dismissal.
AFFIRMED
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?