Bailey v. State of Nebraska et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - For the reasons stated above, this action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in the proper state court. Judgment shall be entered by separate document. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
BRENT SCOTT BAILEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
NEBRASKA HEALTH & HUMAN
SERVICES, CUSTER COUNTY,
CUSTER COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, and AMANDA MAE
WILDER-BAKER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

7:16CV5007

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Filing
No. 1.) Plaintiff, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois, has
been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. 8). The court now
conducts an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint to determine whether summary
dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which requires the court to
dismiss a complaint or any portion thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim,
that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
I. SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT
Plaintiff brings this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for injunctive and monetary relief
against the State of Nebraska and Custer County and two of their agencies and against
an individual named Amanda Mae Wilder-Baker. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants
used “a ‘Notice by Publication’ as a means of ‘Notice’ to the Plaintiff in termination
of parental rights and/or adoption proceedings” and that such notice, appearing in a
weekly Custer County newspaper, violated his due process rights. (Filing No. 1 at

CM/ECF pp. 3, 6-7 (capitalization corrected).) Plaintiff requests “an injunction &
reversal in the termination of parental rights and/or adoption proceedings of Destani
Ogden-Wilder” and asks that this court issue an order “compel[ling] the Custer
County District Court to accept a posthumous filing for adoption of Destani Ogden
by Brent Bailey, her biological father.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF p. 5 ¶¶ 22-23
(capitalization corrected).)
II. DISCUSSION
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint requests “reversal” of the Custer County District
Court’s “termination of parental rights and/or adoption proceedings of Destani OgdenWilder” and alleges that the notice provided to him regarding the result of those
proceedings violated his rights to due process, resolution of such claims in this court
is barred by what is known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Only the Supreme Court has the authority to entertain a proceeding to reverse
or modify a state court judgment. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416
(1923); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) (granting the United States Supreme Court the
power to review final judgments rendered by high courts of a state). In addition,
federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review final state court judgments in judicial
proceedings. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-86
(1983). Together, these two principles have merged to become the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine stands for the proposition that federal district
courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review final state judgments or to review
claims that are inextricably intertwined with state court decisions, “even if those
challenges allege that the state court’s action was unconstitutional.” Feldman, 460
U.S. at 486. See Riehm v. Engelking, 538 F.3d 952, 964 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining
limited scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222
F.3d 488, 492-95 (8th Cir. 2000) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine forecloses indirect
2

attempts to undermine state court decisions; federal constitutional claim is
“inextricably intertwined” with state court judgment if federal claim succeeds only to
extent state court wrongly decided issue before it).
Here, Plaintiff wants the court to reverse a state court’s decision, order the state
court to accept a “filing for adoption” of Plaintiff’s biological child, and to assess
damages for the unconstitutional way in which Plaintiff was advised of the state
court’s decision. It is not possible for this court to grant the requested relief without
disrupting the parental-rights and adoption decisions of the Custer County District
Court. Therefore, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims,
and this suit must be dismissed. Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548-49 (8th Cir.
2003) (concluding Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred district court from considering
plaintiff’s claim that state court unconstitutionally infringed his parental rights);
Amerson v. Iowa, 94 F.3d 510, 513 (8th Cir. 1996) (stating that it is “inappropriate for
a federal court to address a claim that necessitates invalidating a state court judgment
on a matter committed to the states in order to grant the relief sought”).
Because allowing Plaintiff to amend his Complaint would be futile, the court
will dismiss this action instead of allowing further amendment. Mawhiney v. Warren
Distribution, Inc., No. 8:05CV466, 2007 WL 188713, at *2 (D. Neb. Jan. 22, 2007)
(denying leave to amend as futile when consideration of plaintiff’s claims was barred
by Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, No. CIV. 12-57, 2012 WL
4449850, at *2 (D. Minn. Sept. 26, 2012), aff’d, 518 F. App’x 502 (8th Cir. 2013)
(amendment of complaint would have been futile when claims were barred in part by
Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:

3

1.
For the reasons stated above, this action is dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in the proper state court; and
2.

Judgment shall be entered by separate document.

DATED this 13th day of February, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

4