Clayton Bates, et al v. State of Ohio, et al

Filing

Filed Nonprecedential Disposition PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge; Daniel A. Manion, Circuit Judge and Diane S. Sykes, Circuit Judge. [6911813-1] [6911813] [17-2879]

Case: 17-2879

Document: 29

Filed: 03/20/2018

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

Pages: 2

To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted March 16, 2018*
Decided March 20, 2018

Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2879

Appeal from the United
States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana,
Indianapolis Division.

CLAYTON M. BATES, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.

No. 1:17-cv-1586-WTL-TAB
William T. Lawrence, Judge.

STATE OF OHIO, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Order
Relatives of a minor child appeal the district court’s dismissal of their suit for lack of
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Plaintiffs
challenge decisions of Ohio’s judiciary terminating the mother’s parental rights and
putting the child in the custody of the state.

*

Defendants were not served with process and are not participating in this appeal, which we decide
without oral argument because it is frivolous. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

Case: 17-2879
No. 17-2879

Document: 29

Filed: 03/20/2018

Pages: 2

Page 2

Plaintiffs’ notice of appeal is untimely with respect to the district judge’s order of
dismissal. In an earlier order, this court stated that appellate review would be limited to
issues presented by a post-judgment motion that the district judge denied. (The appeal
is timely with respect to the order denying that motion.) Plaintiffs see this as an opening
to reargue their whole case. It is not. At all events we see no error in the district court’s
order, because the court was right to hold that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, only the Supreme Court of the United States can
review the final decisions of state courts in civil litigation. The “vital question” is
“whether the federal plaintiff seeks the alteration of a state court’s judgment.” Milchtein
v. Chisholm, 880 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 2018). Plaintiffs acknowledge that this is what
they want. They even captioned their complaint in federal court, and their brief in this
court, as an “appeal” from the child-custody rulings. They also have named the State of
Ohio, its Attorney General (styled as “~richard-m: dewine”), and its juvenile court as
defendants. But the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the district court of any authority
to review and revise a state court’s decision.
The papers that plaintiffs have filed in this court, like those they filed in the district
court, are irregular in form (the appellate brief is captioned “Principle Brief, Writ of
Scire Fascias”), close to incomprehensible in content, and similar in many respects to
documents filed by self-declared “sovereign citizens.” The brief does not seriously attempt to show that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable. Future similar filings by
any of the plaintiffs will lead to financial and other penalties.
AFFIRMED