* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order (continued...) 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 30 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DAVID L. BURR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. BILL D. ROBINSON, District Court Judge, Wyandote County, State of Kansas; CAROL BACON, District Court Judge, assigned to the Kansas Court of Appeals; P.J. PEIRRON, Judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals; R.J. LEWIS, Judge of the Kansas Court of Appeals; RICHARD HOLMES, Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court; KAY MCFARLAND, Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court; TYLER LOCKETT, Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court; DONALD ALLEGRUCCI, Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court; FRED SIX, Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court; BOB ABBOTT, Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court; ROBERT DAVIS, Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court,

Defendants-Appellees. No. 98-3028 (D.C. No. 97-2293-GTV) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** (...continued)

and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff David L. Burr appeals the district court’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matt er jurisdiction. Following consideration of the parties’ briefs and review of the record, we affirm. On February 7, 1994, Mr. Burr filed a medical malpr actice lawsuit in Kansas state court. His case was dismissed as file d outside the applicable statute of limitations. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirm ed the dismissal decision, the Kansas Supreme Court denied review, and the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. Mr. Burr then filed this actionin federal court under § 1983, alleging that all of the state court judges involve d in his case violated his constitutional rights of due process and access to the courts. Defendants moved for dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, failure to state a-3-

cognizable claim. The district court granted defen dants’ motion based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Mr. Burr’ s complaint. We review de novo the district court’s determinatio n that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. See Painter v. Shalala , 97 F.3d 1351, 1355 (10th Cir. 1996). It is well established that federal district courts generally do not have jurisdiction to review, reverse, or invalidate a final state-court decision. See District of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 482-86 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). The Rooker-Feldmandoctrine bars “a party losing in state court . . . from seek ing 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 it self violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. De Grandy , 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Under this rule, jurisdiction to review state-court decisions lies e xclusively with superior state courts and, ultimately, the United States Supreme C ourt. See Facio v. Jones , 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 1991) . The Rooker-Feldmandoctrine bars consideration not only of issues actually presented to and decide d by a state court, but also bars consideration of constitutional claims that are “‘i nextricably intertwined’ with” issues ruled upon by a state court. See id. (quoting Feldman , 460 U.S. at 483-84 n.16).-4-

Here, Mr. Burr filed a medical malpractice lawsuit which the state court dismissed as filed outside the applicable statute o f limitations. Mr. Burr exhausted his appellate processes in the Kansas courts and in the United States Supreme Court, which is vested with exclusive juris diction to review a decision of the highest state court. See Facio , 929 F.2d at 543. It now appears that Mr. Burr seeks to have this court reverse the state court’s judgment and declare the Supreme Court law applicable in this case unconstitutional. This we decline to do. In Facio , we held that “ Feldman not only prohibited direct review of state judgments by lower federal courts, but it also proh ibited those federal courts from issuing any declaratory relief that is ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court judgment.” Id. Here, as in Facio , unless Mr. Burr’s state court dismissal is reversed, his interest in the constitutionality of the state’s limitations statutes is “prospective and hypothetical in nature,” and he la cks standing to assert his constitutional claims Id. Therefore, Mr. Burr’s request for declaratory rel ief is inextricably intertwined with his state court judgm ent, and, absent a showing of the probability of future injury, he cannot maintai n his § 1983 action for declaratory relief. See id. at 544. The dismissal order against Mr. Burr is f inal, and any ruling that Kansas limitations statutes are unconstitutional would not reverse that judgment. See id. at 545.-5-

Mr. Burr has availed himself of every opportunity t o argue his case to the state appellate courts and to the United States Sup reme Court. Thus, he has had all the process due him in this matter. See id. (proper avenue for review of state court judgments is state court and certiorari revie w by the United States Supreme Court); Anderson v. Colorado , 793 F.2d 262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986) (where the state appellate process is available, “a litigant m ay not seek to reverse or modify the state court judgment by bringing a constitution al claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). Therefore, we conclude that the distric t court was correct in finding that, under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Mr. Burr’s § 1983 claims. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge