Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03060/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03060-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

George Papa and Debra Jo Papa, husband

and wife,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

State of Arizona; the Arizona Court of

Appeals, Division One; the Arizona

Supreme Court; Ruth V. McGregor; John

C. Gemmill; and the Arizona Commission

on Judicial Conduct

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-3060-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Defendants' State of Arizona; Arizona Court of Appeals,

Division One; Arizona Supreme Court; Ruth V. McGregor; John C. Gemmill and the

Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct (the “State Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss

(Dkt.#10) and Plaintiff George and Debra Jo Papas' (“Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt.#13); Motion for Judgment to be in Form of Published Opinion (Dkt.#22-1),

and Request to Expedite Judgment (Dkt.#22-2); and Motion for Entry of Default (Dkt.#23).

After reviewing the papers, the Court issues the following Order. 

I. Background 

On December 21, 2006, Plaintiffs filed the instant complaint against the State

Defendants asserting that Plaintiffs were deprived of property without due process as well

as that Plaintiffs' civil rights were violated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

(Dkt.#1). Plaintiffs' allegations take issue with three prior state court judgments and the

Arizona appellate courts handling of Plaintiffs' appeals. For instance, Plaintiffs allege that

on June 16, 1987, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, issued a Memorandum

decision in Papa v. Roberts, 1 CA-CV 8998 (“Roberts”) that “was false because it did not

conform to the evidence, or the law, or the facts of the case.” (Complaint, Dkt.#1, § XV).

Plaintiffs assert that the “civil case was for the recovery of a large real estate sales

commission and ... had been decided by mere Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs in

Apache County Superior Court.” Id. § XVI. Plaintiffs allege that the Arizona Court of

Appeals erred in affirming the Superior Court's decision by “disregard[ing] the true law and

evidence that fully favored Plaintiffs. The Appeals Court also put forth false law and false

evidence into its Memorandum Decision that was contrary to the true facts of th[e] case.”

Id. § XVII. Plaintiffs contend that as a result “Plaintiffs were injured with false judgment ...”

Id. 

Plaintiffs further assert that they were injured by the Arizona Court of Appeals

handling of another civil case in which the Plaintiffs were involved; Papa v. Spurlock, 1 CACV 88-278 (“Spurlock”), which also involved a real estate sales commission allegedly earned

by the Plaintiffs. Id. § XVIII. Plaintiffs allege that the Arizona Court of Appeals ruling

against them “likewise did not conform to the law or the evidence of the case. Instead, the

[Arizona Court of Appeals] wrongfully ruled that Plaintiffs had accepted a pittance ($15,000)

out-of-court settlement to end the case,” which is contrary to the Plaintiffs $388,400.00 fee

allegedly earned on the deal. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the Arizona Court of Appeals “should

have first ruled that Plaintiffs had in fact earned the full real estate sales fee and that to

enforce a non-existent out-of-town settlement was unjust.” Id. § XIX. Additionally,

Plaintiffs contend that “the [Arizona Court of Appeals] should have immediately ruled the

first Roberts case to be in Plaintiff's favor, which would have precluded the Spurlock case

from being ruined with a false Roberts Memorandum Decision.” Id. § XX. In sum, with

respect to the Spurlock case, Plaintiffs allege:

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

The Appeals Court did not conform to the true law or evidence of the Spurlock

case, as to the earned real estate sales commission. Opposing counsel cheated

and broke the law to deceive the court and to steal judgment from Plaintiffs,

and the court was so advised, yet the Appeals Court failed to do its duty to

reverse its false Memorandum Decision in this Spurlock case. This judicial

failure by the Appeals Court obstructed justice; violated due process, and

caused property (commission) loss for Plaintiffs. 

Id. § XXVII. 

Plaintiffs further raise error with the Arizona Court of Appeals decision and handling

in Papa v. State, 1 CA-CV 02-0629 (“State”), which according to Plaintiffs “was false

because it likewise did not conform to the evidence, or the law, or the facts of the case.” Id.

§ XXVIII. According to Plaintiffs, this case derived out of “a Court Order that allowed the

Arizona Corporation Commission to take over the Papa Water Utility Company on the

pretext of putting the system into compliance with the Arizona Department of Environmental

Quality, then return the system to Papa.” Id. § XXIX. Plaintiffs contend that they “were

defrauded of their property since the [Arizona Corporation Commission] did not maintain

and return Plaintiff's property as the Court Order required the [Arizona Corporation

Commission] to do.” Id. Plaintiffs assert that the Arizona Court of Appeals committed error

in affirming two prior dismissals or rulings of the Superior Court's handling of Plaintiffs'

claims. Id. § XXXV. 

Plaintiffs allege that they filed motions for reconsideration of the prior erroneous

Arizona Court of Appeals' decisions in Roberts, Spurlock and State (Complaint, Exhibits AC) and that the motions “[are] more than sufficient to show that the Arizona Judicial System

was negligent, derelict and incompetent to provide adequate judicial service to Plaintiffs...”

Id. § XXXVII. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege that “[s]ince there was 'good cause' shown for

reversal to false judgment, the [Arizona Court of Appeals] and the Supreme Court [of

Arizona] failed their duty to process these 'good cause' Motions for Reconsideration, which

injured Plaintiffs by causing their property loss contrary to law.” Id. § XXXVIII. Plaintiffs

cite Lindus v. Northern Insur. Co., 103 Ariz. 160, 438 P.2d 311 (1968) in support of their

argument that they were permitted to file multiple motions for reconsideration “to ... gain

reversal from false judgments and the injury thereto.” Id. § XLII. Moreover, Plaintiffs allege

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

that Arizona Supreme Court Advisory Opinion 92-10 also supports such motions to the

Arizona Court of Appeals. Id. § XLIV. As such, Plaintiffs allege that “[t]he appellate

court(s) and judges thereto acted outside of their normal duties, scope of employment, and

jurisdiction, when they refused to process required review of Plaintiffs' petitions which

demonstrated 'good cause' to reverse prior false judgments.” Id. § XLVII. Moreover,

Plaintiffs contend that “[s]ince fraud/collusion resulted in 3 false judgments in Roberts,

Spurlock and State ... then these false judgments are not conclusive or closed. False

judgments are required by the 'furtherance of justice' to be reversed by law.” Id. § LIV. 

Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct has also

engaged in misconduct based upon Plaintiffs' Complaint to the Commission regarding the

conduct of Judge John C. Gemmill “for his violation of duty for failure to process Plaintiffs'

'good cause' motions for reconsideration.” Id. § LXI. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Chief

Justice Ruth V. McGregor “completely failed her constitutional duty to correct injustice,

once it was brought to her attention that such injustice prevailed in the court(s) below. Id.

§ LXX. 

Based upon the above allegations and the violations of Plaintiffs' due process and civil

rights, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against all Defendants in the amount of

$229,280,736.00, to be paid by the state of Arizona, plus actual damages of $19,106,728.00,

and attorneys' fees. 

On January 9, 2007, the State Defendants filed the instant Motion to dismiss (Dkt.#10)

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure asserting that: (1) Plaintiffs'

claims are barred by the Eleventh Amendment; (2) Justice McGregor and Judge Gemmill

possess judicial immunity; (3) Plaintiffs cannot assert claims under § 1983; (4) Plaintiffs

cannot assert claims against non-jural entities; and (5) Plaintiffs cannot assert claims under

42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Plaintiffs responded on January 18, 2007 (Dkt.#11) as well as

submitted a sur-reply to the State Defendants' reply on February 26, 2007. (Dkt.#18). As

such, the motion to dismiss is ripe for the Court's consideration. 

II. Jurisdiction 

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Plaintiffs cite 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction as the basis of this

Court's jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs' suit. The State Defendants, in arguing that dismissal

is appropriate, do not contend that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear

Plaintiffs' suit due to the significance of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which, as discussed

below, bars federal courts from reviewing the merits of prior state court judgments.

However, notably, the Plaintiffs in an attempt to distinguish this case from the scope of the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, argue in their Complaint that the doctrine does not apply to this

case. (Complaint, LXXIV - LXXXVII (pp. 26-30)). In light of the fact that the Plaintiffs

raise issue with prior state court decisions and judgments in their Complaint, this Court finds

that it is appropriate to address this Court's subject matter jurisdiction and the significance

of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine sua sponte. See Scholastic Entertainment, Inc. v. Fox

Entertainment, 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that district court has the authority

to dismiss an action sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction). 

A. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine

Under what has become known as the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts

lack jurisdiction to review the judgments and decisions of state courts. District of Columbia

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149 (1923). In Feldman, 460 U.S. at 486, the Supreme Court

stated that district courts do not have jurisdiction “over challenges to state court decisions in

particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege that the

state court's action was unconstitutional.” Rather, the court added, “[r]eview of those

decisions may be had only in the [the Supreme] Court” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Id.

The Ninth Circuit has recently provided additional instruction in applying the RookerFeldman doctrine. In Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th Cir. 2003), the Ninth Circuit

provided this formulation: “[i]f a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly

erroneous decision by a state court, and seeks relief from a state court judgment based on that

decision, Rooker-Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” In such

an instance, that federal plaintiff seeks a forbidden de facto appeal. See id. at 1163. In

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

Worldwide Church of God v. McNair, 805 F.2d 888, 891 (9th Cir. 1986), the Ninth Circuit

emphasized that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “applies even when the challenge to the state

court decision[s] involves federal constitutional issues,” such as challenges anchored to

alleged deprivations of federally protected due process and equal protection rights. 

In the instant case, based upon a plain review of Plaintiffs' Complaint, outlined above,

there can be no doubt that Plaintiffs seek this Court to act as an appellate court of the state

court decisions and judgments rendered against them. Essentially, Plaintiffs would have this

Court perform a collateral review of the adverse judgments of the Arizona state courts in the

Roberts, Spurlock and State litigations. Plaintiffs' entire complaint appears to be based upon

the premise that the Superior Courts, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme

Court erroneously decided Plaintiffs' suits and erroneously determined Plaintiffs' appeals.

This Court does not have the authority to review such issues. Similarly, Plaintiffs' claims

against Justice McGregor and Judge Gemmill are premised on the notion that they

improperly decided or handled Plaintiffs' appeals and motions for reconsideration. Such

requests by Plaintiffs would require this Court “to conduct a direct review of the state court's

judgment and to scrutinize the state court's application of various rules and procedures

pertaining to [the] case,” which this Court simply cannot do under the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. Allah v. Superior Court, 871 F.2d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 1989). Despite Plaintiffs

apparent attempt to frame the allegations involving the prior state court judgments as

collateral or incidental to the claims in this case, it is wholly apparent that the prior state

court decisions and judgments are at the center of this suit and would require this Court to

evaluate the merits and handling of the state court judgments and appeals. For instance, in

support of Plaintiffs' due process and civil rights claims, Plaintiffs repeatedly contend that

the judgments in the Roberts, Spurlock and State matters “did not conform to the evidence,

or the law, or the facts of the case.” Complaint §§ XV, XVIII, XXVIII. This Court lacks the

authority to act as a court of collateral review regarding the Plaintiffs' argument in opposition

to the decisions and handling of such cases. Rather, only the United States Supreme Court

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 6 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

In Plaintiffs' Complaint, they state that “[i]t is appropriate that this federal court

repudiate, if necessary, the unjust, oppressive, and misguided Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, in

the event it is itself an obstruction of justice.” Complaint § LXXXV. This Court; however,

is bound by the well settled precedent that establishes that collateral attacks on state court

judgments, such as this one, do not properly invoke a federal district court's subject matter

jurisdiction. In light of such precedent, this Court will not depart based upon Plaintiffs'

request. 

2

Because the Court has determined that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it will not

address the other arguments in support of dismissal advanced by the Defendants. 

- 7 -

would have the jurisdiction to review the prior state court judgments.1 Accordingly, this

Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' Complaint and this matter must be

dismissed.2

 

III. Conclusion

The Court, upon sua sponte review, finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

hear Plaintiffs' suit. Plaintiffs' action constitutes a collateral attack on prior state court

decisions and judgments that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear. Because the Court finds

that dismissal is appropriate, the Court will deny as moot the remaining pending motions

such as Plaintiffs' Motion for summary judgment. (Dkt.#13). To the extent Plaintiffs seek

this Court's order to be in the form of a published opinion, the Court finds no reason to direct

such. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the State Defendants' Motion to dismiss to the

extent they seek dismissal of the instant suit. (Dkt.#10). This Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, and thus, Plaintiffs' Complaint and action are dismissed. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary

Judgment (Dkt.#13); Request to Expedite Judgment (Dkt.#22-2); and Motion for Entry of

Default as to Defendants. (Dkt.#23). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment to be in Form

of Published Opinion. (Dkt.#22-1).

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 7 of 8
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment

accordingly. 

DATED this 5th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03060-MHM Document 26 Filed 07/12/07 Page 8 of 8