2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-27-2009 

# George K oynok v . Thom a s L loyd P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4302

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ge org e Ko yno k v

. Thom as Llo yd " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1303. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/13031 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4302

___________ GE OR GE L . KOYNO K, A ppel l ant

v . T H O M A S R . L L O Y D , M ay orof D or m ontB or ough, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al c a p a c ity ; JO S E P H M . C O S T A N Z O , fo rm e r P re sid e n t o f D o rm o n t B o ro u g h C o u n c il, i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t y ; K R I ST E N D E N N E , for m erA s s i s t antM anage rof D o rm o n t B o rou g h , ind ividu all yan d in h er o ff ici al ca p ac ity ; T H O M A S H . A Y O O B , III , S o l i c i t o ro f

Do r mo n tBo r o u g h , i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y ; P ATRI CK K E L L Y , B ui l di ng I ns pect or/ C ode Enfor cementO ffi cer , i ndi vi dual l yand i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t y ; R U SSE L L J . M C K I B B E N , for m erI nt er i m B or ough M anage rand Pol i ce Chi ef o f Do r mo n tBo r o u g h , i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y ; DOR M ONT BO RO UGH

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2: 06- cv- 01200) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A r t hurJ . Schw ab

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay15, 2009 B efor e: Sl ovi t er , A m br o and G r eenbe r g, C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ay27, 2009)

_________ OP I NI ON

_________2

P E R C UR I AM G eor ge L. K oynok appea l s pr o s e fr om a Sept ember22, 2008 D i s t r i ctC our tor der d i s mi s s i n g h i s a c t i o n f

o rl a c k o f

s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s d i c t i o n . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, w e w i l l vacate the o rderand rem and t he m at t er for fur t her proceedings. I . B ackgr ound K oynok ow ns pr oper t yi n D or m ontB or ough, Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a. I n 2003, he appl i ed t o t he D or m ontB or ough Z oni ng H ear i ng B oar d ( “ZH B ”) fora var i ance s o t hat he mi ghtus e the pr oper t y( a s i ngl e- fami l yhom e) as a boar di nghous e. T he var i ance w as deni ed i n A pr i l 2003, and K oynok pur s ued a s t atut or yappea l of the ZH B ’ s deci s i on i n t he A l l eghenyC ount yC our tof C om m on Pl eas . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas aff i r m ed the d e c is io n a n d d is m is s e d th e a p p e a l. In 2 0 0 5 , K o yn o k a g a in a p p lied to th e Z H B , this tim e f o r a “ sp e c ial e x c e p tio n ” to us e hi s pr oper t yas a boar di nghous e. T he ZH B unani m ous l ydeni ed the s peci al exce pt i on i n February2006, on t he gr ound t hatt he zoni ng or di nance di d notperm i ta us e bys peci al e x c e p tio n f

o r a b o a rd in g h o u s e in th e d is tr ic t in w h ic h K o yn o k ’s p ro p e rt yis lo c a te d . K oynok agai n pur s ued a s t atut or yappea l . T he C our tof C om m on Pl eas deni ed the sta tu to rya p p e a l in Ja n u a ry2 0 0 7 . K o yn o k so u g h t re v iew in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt, w h ich a g re e d w ith th e Z H B ’s c o n c lu sio n th a t a b o a rd in g h o u se isO n appea l t o t he C om m onw eal t h C our t , K oynok r ai s ed thr ee i s s ues : ( 1) t hatt he 1 B or ough fai l ed t o fol l ow cert ai n pr ocedur es i n adopt i ng i t s or di nance s , r ender i ng t hem voi d; ( 2) t hatt he 1991 occ upancyperm i tauthor i zi ng hi s pr oper t yt o be us ed as a s i ngl efa m il yd w ell ing w as f

rau d u lentlyan d m ist ak en lyissue d ; and (3) tha t th e B o rou g h ’s w i t nes s es comm i t t ed fr aud on the courtbyt es t i fy i ng t hatt heyhad no know l edge of t he u se o f h is pro p ertyas a n ything b u t a si n g le-fam il yd w ell ing . T h e C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt con si dered an d rej ect ed K oy no k’s ar gu m ents . 3 nota perm i t t ed us e i n K oynok’ s di s t r i ct , and af fi r m ed the dec i s i on i n Sept ember2007. 1 See K oynok v. Z oni ng H ear i ng B d. of the B or ough of D or m ont , N o. 303 C . D . 2007 ( Pa. C om m w . C t . June 1 , 20 07 ). T he P enn sy l van i a S up rem e C ou rtden i ed K oy no k’s r equ est t o a p p e a l o n J u n e 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 . S e e Do c k e tNo . 3 5 , Ex . B. I n Sept ember2006, K oynok, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, i ni t i at ed thi s ci vi l act i on pur s uant t o 42 U . S. C . §§ 1983 and 1985( 3) agai ns tD or m ontB or ough and var i ous D or m ont B or ough empl oy ees i n t hei ri ndi vi dual and off i ci al capa ci t i es . H e s oughti nj unct i ve r el i ef and monet arydamages forcl ai m ed vi ol at i ons of hi s D ue Pr oces s , E qual Pr ot ect i on, and E igh th A m en d m en t r igh ts. S p ec ifi ca ll y , h e c lai m ed that h is co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts w ere v io late d d u rin g th e c o u rse o f h is in ter a c tio n s w ith th e Z H B , w h ich a lleg e d ly : h e ld hear i ngs w i t houtpr opernot i ce; i m pr oper l yi s s ued, change d, and/ orr evoked z oni ng r egul at i ons and pr oper t yus e perm i t s ; unfai r l yci t ed K oynok w i t h zoni ng vi ol at i ons ; fai l ed t o adher e t o appl i cabl e zoni ng r egul at i ons and Penns y l vani a s t atut es ; appl i ed zoni ng r egul at i ons unfai r l yt o K oynok butnotot hers i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed i ndi vi dual s ; and r et al i at ed a g a in s t h im .T he doctr i ne t akes i t s name fr om t w o U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tcas es : R ookerv. 2 Fi de l i t yTr us tCo. , 26 3 U. S. 41 3 ( 19 23 ) , a nd D . C. Cour tof A pp e a l s v. Fe l dman , 46 0 U. S. 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ). 4 D ef en d an ts m o v ed to d ism iss th e c ase p u rsua n t t o F ed era l R u le of C ivil P roc ed u re 12( b) ( 6) forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. R athert han con si der the m oti on , i n N ov em ber 200 6, t he D i stri ctC ou rti ssued an order t o sho w cause w h yth e c a se sh o u ld n o t b e sta y e d p e n d in g a d e c isio n b yth e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s in t he under l y i ng l and us e ac t i on – i . e. , K oynok’ s s econd s t at e courtact i on, i n w hi ch he w as a p p e a lin g th e Z H B ’s d e n ial o f h is “ sp e c ial e x c e p tio n ” re q u e st. A f ter b rie f in g p u rsu a n t to t he s how caus e or der , t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t ay ed the ac t i on bas ed on the abs t ent i on pri ncipl es setfort h in Y ou ng er v. H arr i s, 40 1 U . S . 37 (1971 ). Itden i ed D efen dan t s’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s w i t houtpr ej udi ce t o r e- fi l i ng t he mot i on aft err es ol ut i on of the pendi ng st at e cou rtproceed i ng s. I n A ugus t2008, aft ert he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed K oynok al l ow ance t o appea l t he C om m onw eal t h C our t ’ s deci s i on conce r ni ng t he “s peci al exce pt i on” r eques t , D efe ndant s m oved t o r e- open the D i s t r i ctC our tact i on fort he purpos e of r efi l i ng t hei rm ot i on t o di s m i s s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed r eopeni ng. A ft erbr i efi ng on t he mot i on t o di s m i s s , t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or derappl y i ng t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne and di s m i s s i ng t he ca s e forw antof s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. I tconcl uded that 2 K o yn o k ’s fe d era l acti o n is “n o thing m o re tha n a c o ll ateral att ac k o n stat e c o u rt j ud gm ents ” and t hat K oy no k sho uld not be perm i t t ed to r e-pl ead h i s com plai nt becauseA n issue ad jud icated b ythe s tat e c o u rtis “i n ex tr icab lyintertw ined ” w ith a p lai n ti ff ’s 3 f e d e ra l cla im s if

, in o rd e r to g ra n t re lief : (1 ) th e f e d e ra l co u rt m u st d e ter m in e th a t th e sta te cour t ’ s j udgm entw as err oneous l yent er ed; or( 2) t he fe der al cour tm us tt ake a ct i on t hat 5 “p lai n ti ff ’s af

firm ati v e a v erm en ts de m o n str ate tha t . . . h is cau se o f a cti o n is no thing m o re t han a ‘ s pi n- off’ of a s t at e courtact i on . . . . ” I tdeni ed D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s as m o o t. K o yn o k p u rsu e d a tim e lya p p e a l. II. A n a ly sis T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne i s a ques t i on of fe d era l subject m att er jurisdicti o n o v er w h ich w e e x erc ise p lena ryrev iew . S ee W h it ef o rd v . R e e d , 1 5 5 F .3 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). T he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne di ves t s fede r al cour t s of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on w h ere a f

ed era l acti o n “w o u ld b e the eq u ivalen t of an ap p ell ate rev iew ” o f a stat e c o u rt j udgm ent . FO C U S v. A l l eghenyC ount yC our tof C om m on Pl eas , 75 F. 3d 834, 840 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e d o c trin e o c c u p ies “ n a rro w g ro u n d .” E x x o n M o b il C o rp . v . S a u d i B a sic I ndus . C orp. , 544 U . S. 280, 284 ( 2005) . I tappl i es onl yi n ci r cumst ance s w her e “the l os i ng par t yi n s t at e courtfi l ed s ui ti n fede r al cour taft ert he s t at e pr ocee di ngs ended, compl ai ni ng of an i nj ur ycaus ed byt he s t at e- cour tj udgm entand s eeki ng r evi ew and re je c tio n o f

th a t ju d g m e n t.” Id . a t 2 9 1 . R ooker - Fel dm an appl i es t o a cl ai m t hatw as “ac tual l yl i t i gat ed” i n s t at e court , or w hen a c l ai m i s “i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned w i t h [the] s t at e adj udi cat i on. ” D es i ’ s Pi zza v. W ilk e s-B a rre , 3 2 1 F .3 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 3 ). It d o e s n o t ap p lyif a p lain tiff

p re se n ts 3w oul d r endert he s t at e courtj udgm enti neff ectual . D es i ’ s Pi zza , 321 F. 3d at421. 6 an i ndepende ntcl ai m i n t he fe der al act i on – even i f thatcl ai m deni es a l egal concl us i on t hatt he s t at e courtr eac hed. E xxon M obi l , 544 U . S. at293; s ee a l s o M arr an v. M arr an, 3 7 6 F .3 d 1 4 3 , 1 5 4 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im m a yb e in d e p e n d e n t, ev e n if it h a s a n e f f e c t o n th e s ta te d e te rm in a tio n ). K oynok ar gues t hathe di d not( and coul d not ) r ai s e hi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s i n t he s t at e courtact i ons , w hi ch “w er e l i m i t ed t o on- t he- r ecor d r evi ew of w hetherl ocal zoni ng h e a rin g b o a rd s a b u se d [ th e ir] d isc re tio n o r c o m m itt e d e rro r o f law .” H e a rg u e s th a t h is f e d e ra l ac tio n d o e s n o t se e k re v iew o f th e sta te c o u rt d e c isio n s, b u t in ste a d p re se n ts i ndepende ntcl ai m s . I n r es pons e, A ppel l ees ar gue that“K oynok’ s cl ai m s ar e exa ct l yt he s a me i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s t a t e c o u r tl a ws u i t s ” a n d t h a th i s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms ar e barr ed byR ooker - Fel dm an as “‘ i nextr i cabl yi nt er t w i ned’ w i t h t he cl ai m s adj udi cat ed in th e s ta te c o u rt .” W e fi r s taddr es s K oynok’ s m or e r ece nts t at e courtpr ocee di ng, i n w hi ch he pur s ued a s t atut or yappea l of the ZH B ’ s deci s i on t o denyhi m a “s peci al exce pt i on. ” See K oynok v . Z o n in g H e a rin g B d . o f th e B o ro u g h o f

D o rm o n t, N o . 3 0 3 C .D . 2 0 0 7 (P a . C o m m w . C t. J une 1, 2007) . W hen K oynok fi l ed hi s D i s t r i ctC our tact i on, t he “s peci al exce pt i on” pr ocee di ngs w er e pendi ng i n t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas and no dec i s i on had y etbeen en tered b yan ystat e c o u rtin tha t case . T h e S u p rem e C o u rth as h eld th at w h ere there are par al l el pendi ng s t at e and f eder al pr ocee di ngs , t he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne does notI f, forexampl e, t he s t at e courtdi d notr eac h t he mer i t s of the pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s , t hen 4 R ooker - Fel dm an does notappl y . See FO C U S, 75 F. 3d at841; W hi t efor d, 155 F. 3d at 674. 7 d iv e st th e f

e d e ra l co u rt o f

ju risd ictio n . In ste a d , if th e sta te c o u rt re a c h e s a ju d g m e n t f irst, p re c lu s io n p ri n c ip le s a p p ly to th e f e d e ra l a c tio n . E x x o n M o b il, 5 4 4 U .S . a t 2 9 2 -9 3 . P rec lusion p ri n ciples, un li k e the R o o k er-F eldm an d o ctri n e, do n o t stri p the f ed era l cou rt of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. I d. at293. T hus , w hi l e the r ece nts t at e courtpr ocee di ngs m aypr ecl ude s om e ( oral l ) of K oynok’ s fede r al cl ai m s , t heydo notpr ovi de a ba s i s fort he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne and i t s cons equent d e te rm in a tio n th a t it la c k e d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n o v e r K o yn o k ’s f e d e ra l a c tio n . W e nextcons i derK oynok’ s ear l i ers t at e courtpr ocee di ngs , i n w hi ch he pur s ued a s t atut or yappea l of the ZH B ’ s deni al of hi s var i ance r eques t . T hos e pr ocee di ngs concl uded bef

or e K oynok fi l ed hi s D i s t r i ctC our tact i on, and coul d pr ovi de a ba s i s fort he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s app l i cat i on of the R oo ker- F el dm an d octr i ne. H ow ever, on t he sparse r ecor d befor e us , w e ca nnotadequa t el yas s es s t he i s s ue. N ei t hert he part i es nort he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded i nfor m at i on orcour tr ecor ds d e mon s t r a t i n g wha tt h e c o u r td e c i d e d i n Koyn o k ’ s f i r s ts t a t e c o u r tp r o c e e d i n g . To pr oper l yappl yR ooker - Fel dm an, t he fi r s tnece s s arys t ep i s t o det erm i ne exa ct l yw hatt he s t at e courtdeci ded. See M arr an, 376 F. 3d at150; D es i ’ s Pi zza , 321 F. 3d at421; G ul l a v. 4 N . St r abane T ow ns hi p, 146 F. 3d 168, 171 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . W i t houti nfor m at i on about w hatt he s t at e courtdeci ded, w e ca nnotdet erm i ne w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ect8

in d ism iss in g K o yn o k ’s c o n stitu tio n a l cla im s a s “ a c tu a llyd e c id e d ” o r “ in e x trica b ly i nt er t w i ned” w i t h t he i s s ues i n t he s t at e courtact i on. See, e. g. , L ogan v. M oy er , 898 F. 2d 356, 357 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( di s cus s i ng t he nee d fora compl et e r ecor d forappel l at e r evi ew of d e c is io n s b a s e d o n p re c lu s io n ). Forexampl e, i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tK oynok purpor t ed t o r ai s e a s ubs t ant i ve D ue P ro c e ss c laim , es se n tiallya rg u in g th a t th e Z H B a b u se d its p o w e r. W e h a v e h e ld th a t, undercert ai n s uffi ci ent l yextr eme ci r cumst ance s , fede r al cour t s m aycons i derD ue Pr oces s cl ai m s i n t he l and us e cont extw i t houtdangerof bec om i ng a “z oni ng boar d of appea l s . ” See U ni t ed A r t i s t s T heatr e C i r cui t , I nc. v. T ow ns hi p of W arr i ngt on, 316 F. 3d 392, 402 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( appl y i ng t he “s hocks - t he- cons ci ence ” t es tt o det erm i ne w hether a l and us e pl ai nt i ff ha s s t at ed a c ons t i tut i onal cl ai m ) ; s ee a l s o D es i ’ s Pi zza , 321 F. 3d at 427 ( “[T] he pr es ence orabs ence of pr oper t yr i ght s unders t at e l aw i s notdi s pos i t i ve of t he ques t i on w hethera per s on has a pr oper t yi nt er es tpr ot ect ed bys ubs t ant i ve due p roc ess.”); Pa rkv iew A sso cs. P artne rship v . C ityo f L eb an o n , 2 2 5 F 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 6 (3d C ir . 2000) ( R ooker - Fel dm an di d notbarfede r al di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m agai ns tzoni ng boar d, des pi t e s t at e courtdeci s i on uphol di ng zoni ng boar d deci s i on as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e ). T h u s, it is p o ss ib le th a t K o yn o k m a yh a v e a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im th a t is s uffi ci ent l yi ndepende ntof the s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs t o es cape appl i cat i on of theH ow ever , w e ca n s ayw i t h s om e ce r t ai nt yt hatcert ai n as pect s of K oynok’ s fede r al 5 act i on appea rt o be barr ed, underei t hert he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne orpr ecl us i on pr i nci pl es . A m ong ot hert hi ngs , K oynok’ s D i s t r i ctC our tcompl ai nt“s eeks a dec l ar at i on t hathe i s l aw ful l yperm i t t ed t o us e hi s dw el l i ng as a boar di ng- r oom i nghous e” a s w el l as “perm i s s i on t o r entavai l abl e s l eepi ng r oom s t o t he publ i c as has been done forover100 y ear s . . . and aw ar di ng hi m s uch us e now and i n t he futur e. ” D ocketN o. 1, C om pl ai ntat 13, 17. I tappea r s t hats uch r el i ef c oul d notbe gr ant ed w i t houti nt er fer i ng w i t h t he decis i on s i n o ne o r bot h o f t he st at e cou rtact i on s, w hich al so add res sed K oy no k’s r equ est to u s e h is p ro p e rt ya s a b o a rd in g h o u s e . R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. W i t houtm or e i nfor m at i on, how ever , w e ca nnots ayfors ur e. 5 I I I . C oncl us i on T h e re c o rd b e f

o re u s is in su f

f icie n t to a ss e ss w h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d ism issed K o yn o k ’s co m p lai n t fo r l ac k o f su b ject m att er jurisdicti o n u n d er the R o o k erFel dm an doctr i ne. I ndeed, w hi l e the mostr ece nts t at e courtpr ocee di ngs conce r ni ng K oynok’ s r eques tfora “s peci al exce pt i on” mayl i kel yhave a pr ecl us i ve ef fec t , t hey cannotpr ovi de a ba s i s fort he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne. W e ther efor e mustvaca t e the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entand r emand t he mat t er forfur t herpr ocee di ngs . W e expr es s no opi ni on as t o w hethert he D i s t r i ctC our thas j ur i s di ct i on i n t hi s cas e, orw hetherdi s m i s s al foranyr eas on m ayorm aynotul t i m at el ybe w arr ant ed.