Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03857/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03857-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The HONORABLE LINDA R. READE, Chief Judge of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Iowa.

2

D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3857

___________

Willard Edward More, III, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Northern

v. * District of Iowa.

*

Child Support Recovery, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 22, 2010

Filed: July 6, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Willard More appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his complaint alleging

that a 1982 state court order improperly established his paternity and ordered child

support payments and seeking DNA testing and a hearing to disprove paternity and

the recovery of child support previously paid. The district court concluded that

More’s complaint was barred by the Rooker-Feldman2

 doctrine. Reviewing that

Appellate Case: 09-3857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680523
-2-

determination de novo, we agree. See Riehm v. Engelking, 538 F.3d 952, 964 (8th

Cir. 2008) (standard of review). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “applies to cases

brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments

. . . and inviting review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Saudi Basic Ind. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 287 (2005). The doctrine precludes

federal claims that would succeed “only to the extent that the state court wrongly

decided the issues before it.” Johnson v. City of Shorewood, Minn., 360 F.3d 810,

818 (8th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted); see Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548-

49 (8th Cir. 2003) (barring federal review of state court custody determination). 

In dismissing the action, the district court observed that “the plaintiff’s

recourse, if any, is through either the appeals courts, which include the appellate

courts of Iowa and the United States Supreme Court, or a new action commenced in

the Iowa District Court for Linn County.” As this acknowledged that a collateral

attack on the 1982 order may not be precluded as a matter of state law, we clarify that

the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Cf. Fielder v. Credit Acceptance Corp.,

188 F.3d 1031, 1036 n.3 (8th Cir. 2004). As clarified, the judgment of the district

court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2010 Entry ID: 3680523