## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e20,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT NAN CY BEAR,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. J A M E S A . PA T T O N , i n hi s offi ci al ca p ac ityas Ju d g e o f th e D istri ct C o u rt of B row n C ou nty , K ansas,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 3183

AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. No . 0 4 - CV- 4 0 8 1 - J AR) S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: N a n c yB e a r, P ro S e , A p p e llan t. Phi l l K l i ne, A t t or neyG ener al , St eve Phi l l i ps , A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al , O ffi ce of t he A t t or neyG ener al , T opeka, K ans as , forD efe ndant - A ppel l ee.

B efor e L U C E R O , A N D E R S O N , and B R O R B Y , C i rcui tJudg es. B R O R B Y , C i r cui tJ udge.A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antt he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on t he br i efs w i t houtor al a rg u m e n t. See F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 10 th C ir . R . 3 4 . 1 (G ). T h e c ase is th ere fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

- 2- Pl ai nt i ff N ancyB earappea l s fr om t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derdi s m i s s i ng her ci vi l act i on forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o R o o ke r v . F id e lit y Trus tC o. , 263 U . S. 413 ( 1923) , and D is tr i ctof C ol um bi a C our tof

Appeals v. Feldm an , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ) ( to g e th e r, R ooker - Feldm an ) . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, and w e vac at e the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s j udgm entand rem and for furt her proceedings. * I . Backg r ound N ancyB eari s an enr ol l ed mem berof t he K i ckapoo Tr i be and l i ves on t he T r i be’ s r es er vat i on i n K ans as . She fi l ed thi s act i on s eeki ng decl ar at or yand i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tdefe ndantJ ames A . Pat t on i n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yas J udge of the D i s t r i ctC our tof B r ow n C ount y , K ans as . J udge Pat t on pr es i ded over c iv il a c tio n N o . 0 2 -C -6 1 , Kathy Ann B r adl ey, etal . v. Nancy Sue B ear, etal . T he pl ai nt i ffs i n t hats t at e ac t i on br oughtt w o cl ai m s agai ns tB ear . C ountI r eques t ed a dec r ee di s s ol vi ng a part ner s hi p of w hi ch B earw as a mem berand an a ccount i ng th a t w o u ld d iv id e th e p a rtn e rsh ip a ss e ts. C o u n t II so u g h t a p a rtiti o n o f p ro p e rty ow ned byt he part ner s hi p. O n D ece m ber10, 2003, aft era tr i al t o cour t , J udge P a t t o n fi l e d a j o u r n a l e n t r yi n wh i c h h e o r d e r e d t h a t“ [ p ] u r s u a n tt o K. S . A.K a n . S tat. A n n . § 6 0 -2 5 4 (b ) re a d s a s fo llo w s: 1 (b) Ju dg me n tup o n mu l t i p l e c l a i ms . W hen more t han one c l ai m for r e l i e f i s p r e s e n t e d i n a n a c t i o n , wh e t h e ra s a c l a i m, c o u n t e r c l a i m, cro ss-claim o r t h ir d -pa rt yclaim o r, w h en m u lt iple p arti es a re i nvol ved, t he courtm aydi r ectt he entr yof a f i nal j udgm entas t o one orm or e butfew ert han al l of t he cl ai m s orpar t i es onl yupon an expr es s det er m i nat i on t hatt her e i s no j us tr eas on fordel ayand upon an expr es s di r ect i on fort he entr yof j udgm ent . I n t he abs ence of s uch det er m i nat i on and di r ect i on, anyor derorot herfor m of deci s i on, how everdes i gnat ed, w hi ch adj udi cat es few ert han al l t he c laim s o r th e rig h ts a n d liab ili ties o f fe w e r th a n a ll th e p a rties sh a ll nott er m i nat e the ac t i on as t o anyof t he cl ai m s orpar t i es , and the o r d e ro ro t h e rfo r m o f d e c i s i o n i s s u bj e c tt o r e v i s i o n a ta n yt i me befor e the entr yof j udgm entadj udi cat i ng al l t he cl ai m s and the ri gh t s and li abil i t i es of all t he p art i es.

- 3- [§] 60- 254( b) fi nal j udgm ents houl d be ent er ed on C ountI I of pl ai nt i ffs ’ Pet i t i on ( For Par t i t i on) . ” R . , doc. 3, unl abel ed ex. at103. I n t he j our nal entr y , J udge 1 Pat t on or der ed a pa r t i t i on of ce r t ai n r eal es t at e and pe r s onal pr oper t yow ned by th e p a rt n e rs h ip . O n J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 0 4 , a s h e ri ff ’s s a le w a s h e ld a n d th e p ro p e rt ys o ld . See i d. at182- 86. A l s o on t hatdat e, B earfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he ca s e, ar gui ng t hatt he courtl acke d s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on overt he r eal es t at e and per s onal pr oper t yati s s ue bec aus e i tw as on I ndi an l and. O n J ul y9, 2004, B earfi l ed hercompl ai nti n t hi s act i on, r eques t i ng a var i etyof dec l ar at or yr el i ef, i ncl udi ng t hatJ udge “Patt on’ s as s um pt i on of j ur i s di ct i on overPl ai nt i ff Bear ’ s deede d l ands on t he K i ckapoo Rese r vat i on v io la te d fe d e ra l la w a n d h is o rd e r t o liq u id a te s a id la n d s is s u e d in s a id c a s e is . . . nul l and voi d. ” Id. , doc. 1 at9. She al s o s eeks i nj unct i ve r el i ef pr ohi bi t i ng J udgeA s di s cus s ed more ful l ybel ow , t he R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e d iv e sts 2 fe d e ra l d istric t co u rts o f su bjec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r c laim s th a t se e k , in subst ance, appell at e revi ew of fi nal s t at e-courtj ud gm ents .

- 4- Pat t on fr om i s s ui ng orenfor ci ng anyfur t heror der s , j udgm ent s , ordecr ees re g a rd in g h e r o r a n yo f h e r d e e d e d la n d s o n th e K ic k a p o o R e s e rv a tio n . J udge Pat t on, w ho had noty etrul ed on B ear ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , s t ay ed t he c a s e b e fo r e h i m su a sp o n te pendi ng t he r es ol ut i on of t hi s act i on. H e fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour tgr ant ed bas ed on l ack of s ubj ectm at t er j ur i s di ct i on undert he R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne. T he courtconcl uded that“the 2 reli ef B ea r req u ests . . . is no t sep ara b le fro m an d co ll ateral t o [th e state-co u rt ca se], fo r B ea r i n esse n ce see k s an o rde r fro m this C o u rtv ac ati n g Ju d g e P att o n ’s d e c isio n s. T h e re fo re , B e a r’s c laim is in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith th e sta te cour t ’ s deci s i on, and thi s C our tcannotexer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on. ” Id. , d o c . 1 0 a t 4 ( foot not e omi t t ed) . T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew de novo a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of a c om pl ai ntforl ack of s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . K i ow a Indi an Tri be of O kla. v Hoover , 150 F. 3d 1163, 1165 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) . B eca us e B earappea r s pr o s e, w e r evi ew her p lead ing s an d o ther p ap ers li b era ll yan d h o ld the m to a less s tr ing en t st an d ardJ udge Pat t on s ugges t s t hatw e s houl d notgr antB eart he defer ence 3 or di nar i l yaffor ded t o pr o s e l i t i gant s beca us e, upon i nfor m at i on and bel i ef, he a ss e rts th a t sh e re c e iv e d a ss ista n c e f ro m h e r a tto rn e y s in d ra f tin g h e r a p p e llate b rie f. A lth o u g h h e r b rie f a p p e a rs to b e c o n sis ten t w ith b rie fs tra d iti o n a lly a ss o c iate d w ith a tto rn e y s a n d sh e w a s re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l in th e d istric t co u rt, w e a re o b lig e d to c o n stru e h e r b rie f lib e ra llyin th e a b se n c e o f e v id e n c e th a t it w a s p r e p a r e d w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a n a t t o r n e y.

- 5- th a n th o s e d ra f

te d b ya tto rn e y s . See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U . S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (19 7 2 ); Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 & n . 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 3 U nder28 U . S. C . § 1257( a) , “[f] i nal j udgm ent s ordecr ees r ender ed byt he hi ghes tcour tof a St at e i n w hi ch a de ci s i on coul d be had, m aybe r evi ew ed byt he Supr eme C our tbyw r i tof ce r t i or ar i . ” The R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne ar os e outof t hi s s t atut e, and pr ovi des t hatonl yt he Supr eme C our thas j ur i s di ct i on t o hear a p p e a ls f

ro m fin a l s ta te c o u rt ju d g m e n ts . See G uttm an v. Kha lsa , 446 F. 3d 1027, 1 0 3 1 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). Feder al di s t r i ctcour t s do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew s ta te c o u rt ju d g m e n ts o r c la im s in e x tr ic a b ly in te rt w in e d w ith th e m . Id. A t th e tim e th e d istric t co u rt d ism iss e d B e a r’s a c tio n , the law o f th is c irc u it w as t hatt he R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne appl i ed t o “al l s t at e- cour tdeci s i ons — fi nal o r o th e rw is e .” Kenm en Eng’g v . C i t y of Uni on , 3 1 4 F . 3 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 5 (10 th C ir . 2002) . H ow ever , j us tone w eek pr i ort o t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of t hi s cas e, t he Supr eme C our thel d t hat“[t ] he R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e . . . is c o n fin e d to

. . . cas es br oughtbys t at e- cour tl os er s compl ai ni ng of i nj ur i es caus ed by s t at e- cour tj udgm ent s r ender ed befor e the di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs comm ence dW e n o te th a t R ooker - Feldm an do es not applyi n the hab eas con t ext because 4 C o n g re s s h a s a u th o ri z e d fe d e ra l d is tr ic t c o u rt s to re v ie w s ta te p ri s o n e rs ’ p e titio n s . See Exxon Mobi lC or

p. , 5 4 4 U . S . at 29 2 n . 8 (cit ing 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 4 (a)).

- 6- and i nvi t i ng di s t r i ctcour tr evi ew and r ej ect i on of t hos e j udgm ent s . ” Exx o n Mo b il C or p. v. Saudi B as i c Indus . C or p. , 544 U . S. 280, 284 ( 2005) . T he C our tfur t her expl ai ned that , i n bot h R ookerand Feldm an , “the l os i ng par t yi n s t at e courtfi l ed su it i n fe d e ra l co u rt af t erthe s t at e pr ocee di ngs ended . ” Id. a t 2 9 1 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). A c c o rd in g ly, Exx o n Mo b ilr ever s es ourhol di ng i n Kenm en t hat R ooker - Feldm an appl i es t o “al l s t at e- cour tdeci s i ons — fi nal orot herw i s e. ” See G ut tm an , 446 F. 3d at1031. 4 W e re c e n tlya g re e d w ith se v e ra l o f o u r sis ter c irc u its th a t “a f ter th e sta te p ro c e e d in g s e n d e d ” m e a n s th a t “ R ooker - Feldm an appl i es onl yt o s ui t s fi l ed af t er s t at e pr ocee di ngs ar e fi nal . ” Id. at1032 ( ci t i ng Feder aci on de Maes tr os de P uer t o R i co v. Junta de Rel aci ones delTrabaj o de Puerto R i co , 410 F. 3d 17, 2 4 -2 5 (1 st C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); Hobl ock v . A l bany C ount y Bd. of E l ect i ons , 422 F. 3d 77, 89 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); D or nhei m v. Shol es , 4 3 0 F . 3 d 9 1 9 , 9 2 4 (8th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); Mothers hedv. Just i ces of the S up rem e C ou rt , 4 1 0 F . 3 d 6 0 2 , 6 0 4 n . 1 (9th C ir . 2005) ) . I n G ut tm an , w e al s o ci t ed w i t h appr oval t he Fi r s tC i r cui t ’ s expl anat i on of s ever al s i tuat i ons i n w hi ch a s t at e- cour tj udgm entcoul d be cons i der ed fi nal for R ooker - Feldm an purpos es , one of w hi ch i s r el evanther e: “‘ i f t he s t at e ac t i on has- 7-

r eac hed a poi ntw her e nei t herpar t ys eeks fur t heract i on. ’ ” G ut tm an , 446 F. 3d at 1032 n. 2 ( quot i ng Feder aci on , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 2 4 ). T h e p re se n t ca se re q u ire s u s to g o o n e ste p f u rth e r th a n w a s n e c e ss a ryin G ut tm an and hol d t hat“i f a l ow ers t at e courti s s ues a j udgm entand the l os i ng par t yal l ow s t he t i m e forappea l t o expi r e, t hen the s t at e pr ocee di ngs have e nded. ” Feder aci on , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 2 4 . A c c o rd in g ly, R ooker - Feldm an appl i es as t o t hat j udgm entand anycl ai m s i nextr i cabl yi nt ert w i ned w i t h i t . U ndert hi s vi ew of R ooker - Feldm an , t he r el evanti nqui r yi n t hi s cas e i s w hether , att he t i m e the fede r al act i on w as fi l ed, t he j udgm enton C ountI I t hatJ udge Pat t on i s s ued pur s uantt o K an. St at . A nn. § 60- 254( b) w as fi nal and appe al abl e underK ans as la w a n d , if

s o , w h e th e r B e a r’ s tim e fo r t a k in g a n a p p e a l h a d ru n . A l t ho ug h the st at e proceed i ng s have n ot “ended ” i n a g eneral sense becau se t he ac count i ng and di s t r i but i on of t he pr ocee ds of t he s her i ff’ s s al e r emai n, a fi nal j udgm enton C ountI I t hatw as no l ongerappea l abl e w oul d have i nvoked R ooker - Feldm an ’ s j ur i s di ct i onal barfort w o r eas ons . Fi r s t , t he purpos e of the bar is t o p rev en t a st ate c o u rtli ti g an t from circu m v en ti n g the a p p ell ate struc ture e s ta b lis h e d b y2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 7 (a ). See Rooker , 2 6 3 U .S . at 4 1 6 (e x p lain in g th a t, aft ert he per i od forappea l t o t he Supr eme C our tl aps es , “an a ggr i eved l i t i gant cannotbe perm i t t ed t o do i ndi r ect l yw hathe no l ongercan do di r ect l y ” byfi l i ng an ac t i on i n a fe der al di s t r i ctcour t ) . M er el yal l ow i ng t o el aps e the t i m e foran appea l fr om a fi nal , appea l abl e j udgm enton one of mul t i pl e cl ai m s , t hen fi l i ng an- 8-

act i on i n a fe der al di s t r i ctcour tat t acki ng t he s t at e court ’ s j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er th a t ju d g m e n t, w o u ld d o ju s t th a t. T he s econd r eas on a fi nal j udgm enton C ountI I w oul d have i nvoked the R ooker - Feldm an bari s t hatB ear ’ s r eques tforpr os pect i ve dec l ar at or yand inju n c tiv e re lief

is in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith it. A fe d e ra l cla im is in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith a sta te- c o u rt ju d g m e n t if th a t ju d g m e n t “ caus ed , actual l yand pr oxi m at el y , t he i njury forw hi ch the fe der al - cour tpl ai nt i ff s eeks redress . ” Ken m en E n g ’g , 3 1 4 F .3 d a t 4 7 6 (fo o tn o te o m itte d ), abr ogat ed on other gr ounds by Exx o n Mo b il , 5 4 4 U . S . 2 8 0 . A s n o ted a b o v e, i n the C o u n t I I j udgm ent , J udge Pat t on concl uded thatt he part ner s hi p as s et s s houl d be par t i t i oned and or der ed the s her i ff’ s s al e. T hus , t he j udgm enti s t he ca us e of the pr os pect i ve i nj ur yB ears eeks t o enj oi n— an ac count i ng and di vi s i on of par t ner s hi p as s et s underC ountI

— and the pr os pect i ve r el i ef s he s eeks i n her fede ral cl ai m i s, t herefore, i nex t ri cablyi nter t w i ned w i t h it . A bsent the ad verse ju d g m e n t o n C o u n t II, B e a r w o u ld h a v e n o b a sis , an d p e rh a p s n o re a so n , to ch all en g e p rosp ec ti v elyJu d g e P att o n ’s j u ri sd ict ion to en ter ord ers o n C o u n t I . W e dec l i ne t o addr es s i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance w hethert he C ountI I j udgm ent w as fi nal underK ans as l aw w hen B earfi l ed thi s act i on. T he di s t r i ctcour ti s i n a bet t erpos i t i on t o acc eptar gum entfr om t he part i es , m ake factual fi ndi ngs ort ake ev iden ce if n ec essa ry , an d reso lve th e issu e. F u rt h erm o re, i f th e d istri ct co u rt d e ter m in e s th a t th e ju d g m e n t w a s n o t fin a l an d , the re fo re , tha t R ooker - Feldm anA l t hough w e do notr eac h t he i s s ue of Youngera b ste n tio n , w e n o te th a t it 5 appea r s one of i t s es s ent i al pr edi cat es , t he pr es ence of an ongoi ng pr ocee di ng, m a yb e a b s e n t h e re . See Southw es tA i rA m bul ance, Inc. v. C i t y of Las Cruce s , 268 F. 3d 1162, 1178 ( 10t h C i r . 2001) ( hol di ng Youngera b ste n tio n in a p p ro p ria te w her e a muni ci pal cour ts t ay ed a c r i m i nal pr ocee di ng su a sp o n te i n favorof fe d era l r eso luti o n o f th e issu es).

- 9- does notappl y , i tcan c ons i dert he al t ernat e bas es fordi s m i s s al ur ged byJ udge P att o n , n am ely , ab sten ti o n u n d er Yo u n g e r v . Ha rr is , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) , and the di s cr et i on a di s t r i ctcour thas t o decl i ne t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on undert he D ec laratoryJu d g m en t A ct, 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 0 1 (a). 5 I I I . C oncl usi on I n v i e w of

t h e fo r e g o i n g , t h e j u d g me n to f t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s VA CA TED and the ca s e i s r emanded forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.