Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02090/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02090-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Raton
Appellee
Mark Van Buskirk
Appellant

Document Text:

{ 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Uni1111d S-.. Court of Appiah Tenth circuit 

SEP O 7 1990 

MARK VAN BUSKIRK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF RATON, a New Mexico 

municipal corporation, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2090 

(D.C. No. CIV 88-0468 JB) 

(District of New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT! 

Before McKAY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, 2 District 

Judge. 

This case comes before us on appeal from the district court's 

order granting defendant's motion to dismiss. 

I. FACTS 

In 1968 the City of Raton obtained the water rights of 

plaintiff's family through condemnation proceedings. The condemnation was opposed on the grounds that the taking was not 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2090 Document: 010110041941 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 1 
I ' 

necessary, that it was not for public use, and that it violated 

the condemnees' constitutional rights. The jury found that 

condemnation of senior water rights was for a public purpose and 

awarded the plaintiff's family $196,622.00 including interest. 

The record reflects that the Satisfaction of Judgment was executed 

by plaintiff's family on November 4, 1968. 

After the City of Raton filed an application to change the 

point of diversion for the acquired water rights, the condemnees 

protested and a public hearing was held. The State Engineer's 

determination that the acquired senior rights were to be used to 

fill the city's junior rights until additional uses were developed 

was upheld in state district court. That decision was not 

appealed, thus final judgment in this matter was entered in 1972 . 

In 1987, Mark Van Buskirk, a successor-in-interest to one of 

the original condemnation defendants, filed this action in an 

attempt to regain the water rights formerly possessed by his family. The complaint alleged that a reversionary interest in the 

condemned water rights existed as a matter of law. The City of 

Raton filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that 

plaintiff lacked standing, that there was no statement of a claim 

for which relief could be granted, and that federal question 

jurisdiction did not exist. After hearing counsel's arguments, 

the district court granted the City's motion to dismiss. This 

appeal followed. 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-2090 Document: 010110041941 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 2 
I ' 

II. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff first claims that the ·City of Raton obtained no 

interest in the water condemnation proceeding in 1968, thus the 

interests revert back to the original owners. Second, plaintiff 

argues that even if the City of Raton obtained an interest in the 

water condemnation proceeding, such interest has failed because 

the rights were not put to public use. 

Plaintiff's argument fails to recognize the basic tenet of 

final judgments. The first trial in 1968 involving the condemnation proceedings determined all issues that were raised. The 

resulting judgment foreclosed any interest that the condemnation 

defendants had because there was no language in that judgment that 

provided for residual claims. In addition, the record reflects 

that no challenge was made to the condemnation proceedings or the 

amount of compensation in the subsequent action involving the 

State Engineer's decision. 

The failure of the condemnation defendant's to appeal the 

1968 jury verdict rendered that judgment the law of this case. 

The failure to appeal and prevail on any of the issues or claims 

determined in the previous actions makes plaintiff's complaint a 

collateral attack on a state judgment. To the extent that plaintiff's claim is a collateral attack on the final judgment of the 

state court proceedings, he is precluded from litigating those 

issues in this federal civil action. See Lavicky v. Burnett, 758 

F.2d 468, 473 (10th Cir. 1985) (acknowledging rule that party is 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 89-2090 Document: 010110041941 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 3 
precluded from litigating constitutional issue if state court previously decided same issue); Goss v. Goss, 722 F.2d 599, 603-604 

(10th Cir. 1983) (holding that collateral estoppal should be 

applied where state court had jurisdiction to determine bankruptcy 

issue); Braselton v. Clearfield State Bank, 606 F.2d 285, 287 

(10th Cir. 1979) (doctrine of collateral estoppal precludes litigation of issues determined in prior suit); Blair v. Supreme Court 

of Wyoming. 671 F.2d 389, 391 (10th Cir. 1982) (holding that a 

party is precluded from litigating a claim in federal court where 

claim was previously litigated in state court). 

To the extent that plaintiff argues his claims are a direct 

attack on the uses and conditions arising subsequent to the condemnation, we agree with the district court's finding that plaintiff lacks standing. As the Supreme Court has stated: "[S]omething more than an 'adversary interest' is necessary to confer 

standing. There must in addition be some connection between the 

official action challenged and some legally protected interest of 

the party challenging that action." Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 

U. S. 411, 423 (1969). See also United States v. Vigil, 743 F.2d 

751, 758 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1090 (1984) (in order 

to sustain a claimed denial of constitutional rights, the party 

must demonstrate . a legal injury). Plaintiff's interests in these 

water rights were fully and finally terminated (and compensated) 

by the prior final condemnation proceedings. Moreover, as the 

City correctly points out, the actions complained of were not 

- 4 -

Appellate Case: 89-2090 Document: 010110041941 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 4 
directed at plaintiff and did not directly affect any legally protected interest of his. 

We also agree with the district court's finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The wasteful and quarrelsome motions of the parties directed 

toward each other's briefs are DENIED. 

- 5 -

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2090 Document: 010110041941 Date Filed: 09/07/1990 Page: 5