Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05318/USCOURTS-arwd-5_04-cv-05318-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

EDWARD C. ABEL PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 04-5318

JOANNE KOSTER and

GREGORY KOSTER DEFENDANTS

O R D E R

Now on this 8 day of September, 2005, comes on to be th

considered Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) and plaintiff’s

Motion for Scheduling Order, in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss

Defendants’ Answers and Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss (Doc. 10). The Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiff brings this action against his ex-wife and her

current husband. All parties are proceeding pro se. Plaintiff

purports to bring the action under various civil rights statutes,

alleging claims of “fraud” and “conspiracy/obstruction of justice”

in connection with divorce and child support proceedings dating

back to 1983. Plaintiff had two children with his ex-wife and

they are now ages 25 and 32. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff essentially

alleges:

* that his 1983 divorce “was obtain[ed] by fraud because [his

ex-wife] committed adultery and was pregnant about three

months before divorce papers [were] filed” (Doc. 1 ¶ 5);

Case 5:04-cv-05318-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

* that his ex-wife altered the child support order to reflect

that he owed double the support obligation and registered the

altered order in Texas and then in Arkansas (Id.); and

* that his ex-wife “falsely brought non-support charges”

against him (Doc. 1 pgs. 14-15 ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff seeks to recover $500,000.00 in damages and

requests that the Court “order a full federal investigation from

the apple [sic] day one into the accounting errors in all past

state(s) court orders so this Court can see the many errors that

have been promoted by said Defendants.” (Doc. 1 at pg. 21.)

2. Defendants move to dismiss, asserting that plaintiff’s

allegations are false and “lacking in substance and validity.”

(Doc. 11). Plaintiff moves for the issuance of a scheduling order

and to dismiss defendants’ answers and defendants’ motion to

dismiss (Doc. 10).

3. Although not raised by the defendants, the Court must

examine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this

matter. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (whenever it appears by

suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks

jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

action).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that, “with the

exception of habeas corpus petitions, lower federal courts lack 

Case 5:04-cv-05318-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/08/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

subject matter jurisdiction over challenges to state court

judgments.” Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1183 (2001) (citing District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983) and

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923)). A party

who was unsuccessful in state court is therefore “barred from

seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state

judgment in a United States district court based on the losing

party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s

federal rights.” Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-1006.

Thus, a federal district court may not exercise jurisdiction over

constitutional claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with

claims already adjudicated in state court. Lemonds, 222 F.3d at

492-93. A claim brought in federal court is inextricably

intertwined with a state court judgment if the “federal claim

succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided

the issue before it.” Id. At 493. 

4. Attached to plaintiff’s complaint is a “Motion to

Modify,” which plaintiff filed in the District Court of Benton

County, Arkansas on November 26, 2003. In this motion, plaintiff

made allegations identical to those he makes in the current action

and sought to “vacate the registration of the foreign [child

support] order ....” (Doc. 1 Ex. A at pg. 10.)

Case 5:04-cv-05318-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/08/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

A hearing was held on plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify” on March

10, 2004. The transcript of this hearing, which is attached to

plaintiff’s complaint, reflects that plaintiff’s motion to modify

was denied on res judicata grounds. Specifically, the state court

judge ruled:

Mr. Abel, I know that you are not satisfied. I doubt

that there is anything I can do to satisfy you, but I

have given you a hearing on these issues already in

2002, and the order that I entered in 2002 is a final

order. It ha[d] to be appealed if you [were] not

satisfied with it. You can’t come back in now and have

a hearing on the same issues again. Motion to dismiss

is granted on the grounds of res judicata. (Doc. 1 Ex.

E at pgs. 8-9.)

5. As plaintiff’s allegations in the instant action are

identical to those made in the “Motion to Modify” he filed in

state court, they are obviously inextricably intertwined with the

issues adjudicated in state court. Thus, “the relief requested in

[plaintiff’s] federal action would effectively reverse the state

court decision or void its ruling.” Bechtold v. City of

Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8 Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the th

Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court from considering

plaintiff’s claims, as the federal court action would amount to a

“prohibited appeal of the state-court judgment.” Id. at 1066.

6. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 5:04-cv-05318-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/08/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11) is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Scheduling Order, in the Alternative,

Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Answers and Motion to Dismiss

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) is likewise DENIED as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-05318-JLH Document 17 Filed 09/08/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: <pageID>