Robert Lepelletier, Jr. v. John Tran

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for summary disposition (Local Rule 27(f)) [999731023-2]; denying Motion for judicial notice [999716187-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999660280-2]; denying Motion to certify question to state court [999660280-3] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00103-AJT-TCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999753554]. Mailed to: R. Lepelletier, Jr., L. Simmons. [15-1703]

Appeal: 15-1703

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1703

ROBERT LEPELLETIER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN
M.
TRAN,
Fairfax
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

County

Circuit

Court

Judge;

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00103-AJT-TCB)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

February 11, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lepelletier, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Erin Rose McNeill,
Assistant Attorney General, Liza Shawn Simmons, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1703

Doc: 17

Filed: 02/11/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Robert Lepelletier, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing

his

12(b)(1), (6).

civil

action

pursuant

to

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that

the district court committed no reversible error in dismissing
Lepelletier’s action.
As

the

district

court

properly

concluded,

Lepelletier’s

claims were effectively a collateral attack on a state court
ruling,

doctrine.

See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,

544

U.S.

280,

and

284

thus

(2005)

barred

by

(describing

the

Rooker-Feldman *

sanctions

doctrine);

Adkins

v.

Rumsfeld, 464 F.3d 456, 464 (4th Cir. 2006) (addressing relevant
considerations); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712,
718

(4th

Cir.

2006)

(same).

His

claims

seeking

injunctive

relief against a sitting state court judge for actions taken in
his judicial capacity also were barred by the plain language of
42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

(2012).

Moreover,

insofar

as

Lepelletier

sought to raise constitutional challenges to ongoing state-court
contempt proceedings related to the sanctions order, we conclude
his claims are the proper subject of abstention under Younger v.
Harris,

401

U.S.

37

(1971).

See

*

Sprint

Commc’ns,

Inc.

v.

D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

2

Appeal: 15-1703

Doc: 17

Jacobs,

134

Filed: 02/11/2016

S.

Ct.

584,

Pg: 3 of 3

588

(2013)

(addressing

appropriate

grounds for Younger abstention); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327,
335

(1977)

(abstaining

under

Younger

from

adjudicating

challenges to state court contempt proceeding); Moore v. City of
Asheville, 396 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2005) (listing factors to
guide abstention).
Lepelletier

does

not

challenge

the

district

court’s

conclusion that he failed to allege a valid basis for mandamus
relief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to

issues

raised

in

informal

brief).

Beyond

these

claims,

Lepelletier’s action failed to allege any justiciable Article
III controversy.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
deny

Lepelletier’s

disposition,

and

certification.

motions
for

a

for

judicial

stay

or,

notice,

for

We

summary

alternatively,

for

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3