Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01193/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01193-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HANNAH SHELBY STAUFFER;

JOHN STAUFFER,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

COLORADO MEDICAL BILLING

CORPORATION; STAUFFER

SCHOOLS, INC.; KIDS CAMPS,

INC., (nonprofit corp.),

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOLENE C. BLAIR; DANIEL KAUP;

KAREN E. HAYES, D.O.; A

WOMAN’S PLACE OF FORT

COLLINS, P.L.L.P.; PETER

DUSBABEK; TODD VRIESMAN;

MONTGOMERY, KOLODNY,

AMATUZIO & DUSBABEK, L.L.P.;

J. BRADFORD MARCH, III;

MARCH, OLIVE, & PHARRIS,

L.L.P.; CHERYL TRINE; CHERYL

TRINE LAW FIRM, LLC;

CHRISTINE SKORBERG; A

WOMAN’S HEALING CENTER,

LLC, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-1193

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-03256-RM-MJW)

(D. Colo.)

Appellate Case: 15-1193 Document: 01019480525 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 1 
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before GORSUCH, O’BRIEN, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

Unhappy with how the Colorado courts handled a civil lawsuit that ended

many years ago, John and Hannah Stauffer filed this federal action in the hope of

undoing that state court judgment. But given the enduring rule that we lower

federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to entertain “federal suits that

amount to appeals of state-court judgments,” it’s tough to see what business or

authority we have wading into the merits of the Stauffers’ claims. Bolden v. City

of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 1139 (10th Cir. 2006); see Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,

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

And that’s far from the only fatal defect in this appeal. As the district court

pointed out, the Stauffers already brought (and lost) a federal lawsuit attacking

the same state court judgment they complain about in this case. See Final

Judgment, Stauffer v. Blair, No. 12-CV-01702-WYD-MJW (D. Colo. Nov. 14,

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 15-1193 Document: 01019480525 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 2 
2012). Indeed, we briefly entertained and ultimately dismissed an appeal in that

earlier action a few years ago, and we see no reason to consider today arguments

or claims that were or could have been raised then. See Mars v. McDougal, 40

F.2d 247, 249 (10th Cir. 1930). Accordingly, and for substantially the same

reasons given by the district court, we affirm the dismissal of the Stauffers’

complaint. All pending motions are denied.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 15-1193 Document: 01019480525 Date Filed: 08/25/2015 Page: 3