Belcher v. Commonwealth Of Kentucky et al
Filing
14
OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 5/3/13. (ejs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, )
)
ET AL.,
)
Defendants.
)
AUDREY JUNE HESS BELCHER,
Case No. 1:13CV00014
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge
Carl E. McAfee, Carl E. McAfee, P.C., Norton, Virginia, for Plaintiff;
Benjamin A. Street and Lucy W. Bowman, Street Law Firm, LLP, Grundy,
Virginia, for Defendants.
In this action involving a boundary dispute, the plaintiff asks me to enjoin
the defendants from enforcing a Kentucky state trial court judgment which was
affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Because I find that the suit is barred
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, I will dismiss the action for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction.
I
The Complaint alleges the following facts. Defendants Walter and Joann
Hess own real estate located in Pike County, Kentucky. Plaintiff Audrey Belcher
owns property located in the Commonwealth of Virginia, adjacent to the Hess
parcel; the boundary line between the two properties is the Kentucky-Virginia state
line. The Hesses previously filed a quiet title action against Belcher in the Circuit
Court of Pike County, Kentucky, in which they asked that court to settle a dispute
regarding the property line between the two parcels. The Kentucky trial court held
a bench trial and found in favor of the Hesses. Hess v. Belcher, No. 10-CI-01204
(Ky. Cir. Ct. June 15, 2011). Belcher appealed, and the Court of Appeals of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Belcher v. Hess,
No. 2011-CA-001267-MR, 2012 WL 3137326 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2012)
(unpublished).
Unsatisfied with the outcome of the Kentucky litigation, Belcher then
commenced this action, in which she seeks an injunction to prevent enforcement of
the Kentucky judgment. The Complaint also requests a declaratory judgment,
asking me to
declare the August 3, 2012 Kentucky Opinion to be null and void as
well as the opinion of the Pike County Circuit Court, thereby
protecting the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
integrity of Virginia’s boundaries and the property rights of Audrey
Belcher, and in doing so, thereby invalidating the actions of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
(Compl. ¶ 18.) Belcher contends that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction
pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution because this suit, according to
-2-
Belcher, is essentially a controversy between two states regarding the position of
the Kentucky-Virginia boundary line.1
Walter and Joann Hess have moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.2 For
the reasons that follow, I will grant the defendants’ motion and dismiss the case.
II
Belcher’s Complaint explicitly requests that I review and overturn the
decisions of the Kentucky courts, in violation of the well-established RookerFeldman doctrine. That I cannot do.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, named after two landmark Supreme Court
decisions, bars a party who loses in state court from seeking what is essentially
appellate review of the state court decision in federal court.
Johnson v. De
Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994); Smalley v. Shapiro & Burson, LLP, No.
12-1266, 2013 WL 1613219 at *4 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2013) (unpublished). The
reasons for the doctrine are twofold.
First, the doctrine is grounded in the
1
Belcher has also moved to join the Commonwealth of Virginia as a defendant.
For the reasons stated in this Opinion, this court has no jurisdiction and the addition of
the Commonwealth would not change that determination. Accordingly, it is not
necessary to resolve that motion.
2
The Commonwealth of Kentucky has moved for an extension of time to file
responsive pleadings, but in light of my determination that subject-matter jurisdiction
does not exist, it is not necessary for that party to respond.
-3-
separation of powers. Congress, which is empowered by the Constitution to define
the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, has granted the United States Supreme
Court alone the power to review state court judgments. Id. at *4. In contrast,
federal district courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; Congress has never
given district courts appellate jurisdiction. Brown & Root, Inc. v. Breckenridge,
211 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir. 2000). Second, the doctrine serves to preserve the
independence of state courts. Id. at 198-99.
“The controlling question in the Rooker-Feldman analysis is whether a party
seeks the federal district court to review a state court decision and thus pass upon
the merits of that state court decision . . . .” Jordahl v. Democratic Party of Va.,
122 F.3d 192, 202 (4th Cir. 1997). Belcher unequivocally asks me to do just that.
Because the subject-matter jurisdiction of this court does not include what is in
substance appellate review of a state court decision, I must dismiss the case.3
3
The plaintiff asserts that the Kentucky courts were without jurisdiction over the
dispute because they had no power to fix a boundary between two states. The Kentucky
trial court decided that the Belchers were not entitled to title to the disputed portion of the
property under the doctrine of adverse possession. 2012 WL 3137326, at *1 n.1. The
court also rejected the Belchers’ argument that their property is in Virginia and thus the
court was without jurisdiction to determine the dispute. The court made this latter
decision based upon the trial court’s evaluation of the conflicting testimony presented by
the parties. Id. at *2. The determination of the location of the property was thus decided
only for the purposes of that case and obviously constituted no official determination of
the location of the state line binding upon others not party to the case.
-4-
III
For the foregoing reasons, I find that this court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction and will grant the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A separate order
will be entered herewith.
DATED: May 3, 2013
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
-5-
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?