Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02538/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_________

No. 05-2538

___________

Curt Daniels, doing business as Indian *

Creek Corp., *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

State of Iowa; Jeffrey R. Vont; Lyle W. *

Asell; Paul Johnson; Larry Wilson; Julie * [UNPUBLISHED]

Nelson, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 13

 Filed: March 14, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Curt Daniels appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action. The claims in his federal action relate to alleged irregularities in a prior, civil

environmental enforcement action that the State of Iowa brought against Daniels in

Appellate Case: 05-2538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020393
2

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

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

-2-

Iowa state court. That action resulted in an injunction and a $95,000 fine. Daniels

filed an untimely appeal with the Iowa Supreme Court, which that court dismissed.

He then unsuccessfully petitioned the Iowa Supreme Court and the United States

Supreme Court for further review. 

Approximately ten months after the United States Supreme Court denied

Daniels’s petition for certiorari, he initiated the present action in federal district court.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In a thorough and well-reasoned order, the

district court granted the defendants’ motion, finding in favor of the defendants on

numerous, alternative grounds: (1) subject matter jurisdiction was lacking under the

Rooker-Feldman Doctrine2

; (2) even if jurisdiction existed, Daniels’s claims would

be barred under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel; (3) Daniels’s

claims against the State of Iowa and the individually named plaintiffs in their official

capacities were barred by sovereign immunity; and (4) the claims against the

individually named plaintiffs in their individual capacities were barred by qualified

immunity. 

We affirm for all of the reasons set forth by the district court. 8th Cir. R. 47B.

We write further only as to one issue. Daniels argues that the size of the fine imposed

by the state court was so large that it amounted to a criminal rather than civil fine and

that the denial of the full protections of due process attendant to criminal proceedings

render the state court proceedings void ab initio. He argues further that he had no

opportunity to present this issue to the state courts.

We disagree with Daniels’s assertion that he had no opportunity to raise this

issue in state court. The potential fine was apparent from the outset of the state court

proceedings, and, as such, he could have raised this issue in the state trial court. Even

Appellate Case: 05-2538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020393
-3-

if this argument had somehow been unavailable during trial, he could have raised it

in a timely appeal. Because Daniels failed to present this issue to the state courts, his

present attempt to characterize the underlying proceedings as criminal and to

collaterally attack those proceedings in this court fails for lack of exhaustion of state

remedies.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2538 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/14/2006 Entry ID: 2020393