Bradshaw v. Estate of Paul Bradshaw et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Plaintiff's claims, along with this case, are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 12/13/2017. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
ROD BRADSHAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-2578-JTM-JPO
ESTATE OF PAUL BRADSHAW, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on plaintiff Rod Bradshaw’s motion for a
temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction (“PI”) (Dkt. 7) and
motion to vacate and set aside the Hodgeman County Superior Court Order for Writ of
Execution (Dkt. 8). Having reviewed plaintiff’s motions and amended complaint, the
court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims.
I.

Background

This case arises from the probate of the estate of plaintiff’s father, Paul Bradshaw,
whose will divided his assets equally among plaintiff and his seven siblings. In his
amended complaint, plaintiff alleges wrongdoing by his sister, defendant Janice
Bradshaw, and her attorney, defendant Curtis Campbell. As a result of a criminal
proceeding involving an altercation between plaintiff and his sister, plaintiff was
removed as co-executor of his father’s estate.

Plaintiff also signed a settlement

agreement under threat of imprisonment and fines up to $750,000.

-1-

Presently, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief. He requests the court to “immediately
freeze all assets or sequester all funds that are due to the estate from the [United States
Departure of Agriculture] on land that is part of the Paul Bradshaw Estate.” (Dkt. 5, at
13). Plaintiff also wants to freeze all actions of any creditor that is due to repossess the
land or equipment owned by the estate. Plaintiff seeks appointment of a special master
to reopen the estate. He also requests injunctive relief from defendants Jeff and Tonya
Hillman from selling a house in their capacity as trustees of the estate.
Plaintiff also moves for the court to vacate and set aside the Hodgeman County
Superior Court’s judgment because Michelle Mahieu and her counsel failed to comply
with Kansas notice requirements. In his motion requesting a TRO and PI, plaintiff asks
the court stop the sale of his farm equipment issued by the state court.
II.

Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) requires the court to dismiss the case if it
determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant is pro se and
his pleadings are liberally construed.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

However, it is not the “function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for
the pro se litigant.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff still
bears the burden to allege “sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be
based.” Id.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the court of jurisdiction to overturn the
state court’s judgment. See D.C. Cir. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid.
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars “a party losing

-2-

in state court . . . from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state
judgment in a United States [trial] court.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005–06
(1994).
Even with the liberal review, the court finds that plaintiff’s allegations raise
claims that were decided by the state court or are inextricably intertwined with the state
judgments. It appears that plaintiff is alleging defendants committed misconduct and
failed to comply with state law during the Hodgeman County proceedings. But he
cannot properly appeal those judgments in federal court. Notably, one of plaintiff’s
prior cases (No. 15-3246) was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for similar reasons. See
Bradshaw v. Gatterman, 658 F. App’x 359, 362 (10th Cir. 2016) (“The requested relief
plainly strikes at the state court’s judgment, or, at the very least, are inextricably
intertwined with it. The district judge properly dismissed his claims.”). Therefore, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the court from reviewing plaintiff’s claims and his
case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 13th day of December, 2017, that plaintiff’s
claims, along with this case, are dismissed without prejudice.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. Thomas Marten, Judge

-3-