2010 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 6-28-2010 

# D on ald P arks Jr

. v . T wp of P or t age, C ambri a C ty 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 . 10-1941

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 anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

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 ll anova 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 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " D on ald P ark s Jr

. v . T wp of P or t ag e, C ambri a C ty " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1112. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/1112CL D- 2 1 0 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 os . 10- 1938, 10- 1939, 10- 1940, 10- 1941 and 10- 1942

___________ D O N A L D M . P A R K S , J R , a n a d u lt in d iv id u a l.; JO H N W . P A R K S ; A R L E N E P A R K S , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; D A R L E N E P A R K S , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; V I R G I N I A PA R K S, an adul ti ndi vi dual

v. T O W N SH I P O F PO R T A G E , C A M B R I A C O U N T Y , a muni ci pal corpor at i on; C A L V I N J . W E B B , J R . , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; L I S A F L Y N N , i n b o th h e rp r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; J AM ES KO VA CH , p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty ; CA M BRI A C OU NTY C H I L D R E N A N D Y O U T H S E R V I C E S , a n a d m i n i s tr a t i v e A g e n c y; K A T H Y G O R B A , i n h e rp r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; S T E V E N E L S O N , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; P E N N S Y L V A N I A D E P A R T M E N T O F A G R I C U L T U R E , a s t a t e e n t i ty; M A R K M I L L E R , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; CA M BRI A C OU NTY SHERI FF DEPA RTM ENT; J A C O B K E H E N , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; D E P U T Y C U R R Y , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; CA M BR I A C OUNT Y HUMANE S OC I E T Y; C A R O L Y N W I L L S , i n b o th h e rp r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; CA M BR I A CO U N TY M EN TA L H EA LTH SER V I CE S; PEN N SY LV A N I A STA TE PO LI CE F TR O O P; T RO OP E R L ANE , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty ; RO BE RT KUNKO ; E L W O O D S E L A P A C K , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; K E N N E T H T R I M B A T H , i n b o th h i s p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d p e r s o n a l c a p a c i ty; S C O T T B R U N N E T T , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; N A N C Y B E H E , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; JO H N B E H E , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; T H E L M A B E C K , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; W IL L IA M B E C K , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; R O B E R T B E C K , an a d u lt i n d iv id u a l; G A L E N D E C O R T , J.D ., in b o th h is p ro f e ss io n a l an d p e rso n a l ca p a c ity D onal d M . Par ks , J r . , A ppel l anti n N o. 10- 1938 J ohn W . Par ks , A ppel l anti n N o. 10- 19392 A r l ene Parks , A ppel l anti n N o. 10- 1940 D ar l ene Parks , A ppel l anti n N o. 10- 1941 V i r gi ni a Parks , A ppel l anti n N o. 10- 1942

____________________________________ 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 v. N o. 10- cv- 00075) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e K i m R . G i bs on

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e D i s m i s s al U nder28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) or P o s s ib le S u m m a ry A c tio n U n d e r T h ir d C ir c u it L .A .R . 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6 J une 4, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R and G R E E N A W A Y , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: J une 28, 2010)

_________ OP I NI ON P E R C U R I A M. D onal d M . Par ks , J r . , comm ence d thi s act i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfor the W es t ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a byfi l i ng a pr o s e compl ai nton behal f of hi m s el f and h is f o u r a d u lt sib lin g s, se e k in g d a m a g e s f ro m th e n u m e ro u s n a m e d d e f e n d a n ts d u e to a c tio n s th a t cu lm in a ted in th e ra z in g o f a n u n sa n itary dw e lli n g o w n e d b yth e P a rk s f a m ily w hich w as bei ng m ai ntai ned i n v i olat i on of st at e and l ocal l aw s. P a rk s’s c o m p lain t m a k e s n u m e ro u s re f e re n c e s to th e ju d icia l p ro c e e d in g s in Penns y l vani a s t at e courtthatr es ul t ed i n the r azi ng of the fa m i l yhom e. A l though the3

re c o rd o f th o se p ro c e e d in g s w a s n o t atta c h e d to th e c o m p lain t, th is C o u rt c a n , an d w ill , t ake judi ci al no t i ce of

the p ub l i cl yavail able opi nions r end ered bythe st at e cou rt s i n those pr ocee di ngs , as theypr ovi de the r el evantbackgr ound t o the pr es ents ui t . See M cTer nan v. C i tyof Y or k, 577 F. 3d 521, 526 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe “c our tm ayt ake j udi ci al not i ce of

a pr i orj udi ci al opi ni on”) ; s ee a l s o L um en C ons t . v. B r antC ons t . , 780 F. 2d 691, 697 ( 7th C i r . 1985) ( “[T] he off i ci al r ecor d of the par al l el s t at e ca s e i s a pr oper o b ject fo r j u d ici al no ti ce . ”). I n J ul y2006, the C ambri a C ountyC our tof C om m on Pl eas i s s ued an or deratt he r eques tof the Tow ns hi p of Por t age e nj oi ni ng the Parks fami l yfr om m ai nt ai ni ng a d a n g e ro u s c o n d iti o n o n th e ir p ro p e rty , an d re q u irin g th e m , inte r a lia, to b rin g th e p ro p e rty i nt o compl i ance w i th s t at e and l ocal l aw s w i thi n 60 day s . T he evi dence i ntr oduced byt he T ow ns hi p es t abl i s hed “de pl or abl e l i vi ng condi t i ons [on the pr operty ] , i ncl udi ng, a r ot t en fr ontpor ch s uppor t ed onl ybyr efr i ger at or s and debr i s , 40 m al nour i s hed and unke m pt dogs i ns i de the hous e and 7 out s i de, s ever al fee tof ani m al fec es on the fl oorof the hous e, g a rb a g e s t a c k e d t o th e c e i l i n g , n o i n d o o ro ro u t d o o rb a th r o o m f a c i l i t i e s , b r o wn s l i m e/m ol d on the i nt er i orw al l s , vi s i bl e s i gns of r odenti nfes t at i on . . . , and a s tr ong amm oni a odoremanat i ng fr om the hous e. ” 9/ 8/ 06 R ul e 1925( a) O p. at1- 2, C as e N o. 2 0 0 6 - 2 5 8 9 , C t . o f

C o m m o n P l e a s , C a m b r i a C o u n ty. T h e C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt a f f irm e d th e trial c o u rt’s in ju n c tio n , fin d in g th a t a “[r ] evi ew of the r ecor d s how s a cl earr i ghtt o r el i ef i n the Tow ns hi p, w hi ch pr es ent ed4

a m p le e v id e n c e th a t A p p e llan ts v io late d n u isa n c e o rd in a n c e s,” a n d th a t “[ t]h e e v id e n c e is overw hel m i ng thatA ppel l ant s ’ pr opertycondi t i ons cr eat ed a publ i c nui s ance . ” 7/ 20/ 07 C o m m w . C t. O p . at 7, C ase N o . 2 1 9 3 C . D . 2 0 0 6 . T h e P en n sy lvan ia S u p rem e C o u rt deni ed al l ow ance t o appea l on N ovember1, 2007. A ft eraddi t i onal pr ocee di ngs , the C our tof C om m on Pl eas ent er ed an or deron D ece m ber24, 2008, aff or di ng the Parks unt i l D ece m ber28, 2008, t o r emove per s onal i t ems fr om the pr operty , i n advanc e of the s chedul ed r azi ng of the home on D ece m ber29, 2008. T he C om m onw eal th C our tquas hed the Parks ’ s appea l of thatrul i ng, and the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed al l ow ance of appe al on O ct ober7, 2009. T he Par ks ’ s dw el l i ng w as r aze d on A pr i l 14, 2010. D onal d Par ks fi l ed hi s compl ai nti n the pr es entm att eron M ar ch 16, 2010, aft ert he c o n c lu sio n o f

th e sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s. H e a lso m o v e d f o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n to s t op the r azi ng of the home pendi ng r evi ew . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the compl ai nt su a sp o n te a n d d e n ied th e re q u e st f o r in ju n c tiv e re lief. It n o ted th a t, be c a u se D o n a ld P ark s is no t an a tt o rne y , h e c an n o t r ep rese n t his fo u r si b li n g s. F u rth er, th e D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thati tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on overthe s ui t , and i tdi s m i s s ed the com plai nt forthat r eason. Th e P arks fam i l yt i m el ym ov ed fo r r econ si derat i on . T heyal so eac h t i m el yfi l ed s epar at e not i ces of appe al fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s fi nal j udgm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ubs equent l ydeni ed the r econs i der at i on m ot i on. E ach appel l ants ought a n d h a s re c e iv e d p e rm iss io n to p ro c e e d in f o rm a p a u p e ris o n a p p e a l.

### W e do not have juri s di c t i on t o r e vi e w the l at e r or de r de nyi ng the m ot i on for 1 

### re consideration, as no ne of the a pp el lants fil ed a notic e of app ea l or an am ended n otic e of appealfrom

that order. See Fed. R. App . P. 4(a)( 4)(B)( ii ). 5 W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291 t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C ou rt ’s order di sm i ssi ng the co m plai nt. “W hethersubjectm at t er j uri sdi ct i on exis t s i s a 1 q u e s tio n o f

la w , a n d th u s o u r s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w is d e n o v o .” In re W .R . G ra c e & C o ., 591 F. 3d 164, 170 n. 7 ( 3d C i r . 2009) . A ft era ca r eful r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthes e appe al s pr es ent“no s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, ” 3d C i r . L . A . R . 24. 7, I . O . P. C h. 10. 6, a n d th u s w e w ill su m m a rilya f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. A s a non- att orney , D onal d Par ks w as author i zed t o r epr es enthi m s el f bef or e the D i s tr i ctC our t , buthe w as notperm i t t ed t o r epr es enthi s s i bl i ngs . See 28 U . S. C . § 1654; O s ei - A fr i y i e v. M ed. C ol l . of Pa. , 937 F. 2d 876, 882- 83 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . A ccor di ngl y , t he D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyd ism iss e d Jo h n , A rle n e , D a rle n e , an d V irg in ia P a rk s f ro m th e su it gi ven thatthos e pl ai nt i ffs had notr et ai ned couns el orel ect ed t o pr ocee d pr o s e. T he ap p ea ls t ak en b ytho se sib li n g s (C . A . N o s. 1 0 -19 3 9 , 1 9 4 0 , 1 9 4 1 , an d 1 9 4 2 ) are the ref o re w ith o u t m e rit. D onal d Par ks , the onl ypr operpl ai nt i ff, i s the appe l l anti n C . A . N o. 10- 1938. T he D i stri ctC ou rtheld that the all egati on s i n D on al d’s com plai nt canno tsupp ortan ex erci se of fe der al s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. A l though the D i s tr i ctC our tfai l ed t o expl ai n the b a sis f o r its h o ld in g in a n yd e tail, th e re c o rd is c lea r th a t th e c o m p lain t w a s s u b jec t to

### See Dis t. of Co lum bia Ct. of Ap peal s v. Fel dm an, 460 U.S. 46 2 (19 83 ); Ro ok er 2 

### v. Fideli ty

Trust Co., 263 U.S. 41 3 (19 23 ). 6 di s m i s s al forl ack of

s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on underthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, and 2 thus w e w i l l aff

i r m the di s m i s s al on thatbas i s . See Fai r vi ew T w p. v. E PA , 773 F. 2d 517, 525 n. 15 ( 3d C i r . 1985) ( expl ai ni ng thatthi s courtm ayaff i r m a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm ent o n an yb asis that fin d s su p p o rtin the rec o rd). “The R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne pr ecl udes l ow erfede r al court s fr om exer ci s i ng appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on overfi nal s t at e- courtj udgm ent s beca us e s uch appe l l at e j ur i s di ct i on r es t s s ol el yw i th t he U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our t . ” I n r e M ader a, 586 F. 3d 228, 232 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “The R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne i s i m pl i cat ed w hen , ‘i n o rdert o g rantthe fe deral plai nti ff t he rel i ef sou gh t , the fe deral cou rtm ust det erm i ne thatthe s t at e courtj udgm entw as err oneous l yent er ed orm us tt ake a ct i on that w o u ld re n d e r th a t ju d g m e n t in e f f e c tu a l.’” Id . (q u o tin g F O C U S v . A lleg h e n yC o u n tyC t. of C om m on Pl eas , 75 F. 3d 834, 840 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ) . T hus , “a c l ai m i s barr ed by R ooker - Fe ldm a n . . . if

th e f e d e ra l cla im is in e x trica b lyin ter tw in e d w ith th e sta te adj udi cat i on, m eani ng thatfede r al r el i ef c an onl ybe pr edi cat ed upon a c onvi ct i on thatt he stat e c o u rtw as w ron g . ” In re M ad era , 5 8 6 F . 3 d at 23 2 (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A ti t s cor e, D onal d’ s compl ai nts eeks t o overturn the s t at e tr i al court ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs and i t s det erm i nat i on thatthe Tow ns hi p had a r i ghtt o r aze the home for v io latio n s o f

sta te a n d lo c a l law s. A m o n g th e n u m e ro u s a ss e rtio n s in th e c o m p lain t,

### We n o te th at civ il litig ants d o n o t h av e a f ed eral rig ht to co urt-ap p o intedco un sel. 3 

### See Par ham v. John son, 12 6 F .3d 4 54 , 456 (3d C ir . 199 7). S imilarly , inh is m o tio nf o r anin j un ctio nto sto p th e razin g o f th e h o m e, D o n ald 4 

### argue d that

the s t at e c ourt

or de r i s “ba s e d on [a ] que s t i onabl e e xpe rt opi ni on by

a [n] e ngi ne e r [who] wa s ne ve r

i n the pr e mi s e s t o m ake s uc h de t e rmi nat i on and c r e dibi l i ty of h is testim o ny

[ i] s qu estio n ed .” (D o ck et # 2 at ¶ 2 .) D o n aldask edth e D istrict C o urt to “hear this c as e anddete rmine i f the [statecourt] Order is warrante d,” andhe soug ht an in j un ctio n“until th e f

ed eral co urts h av e th e o p p o rtun ity to rev iewall f

acts inth is case to d etermin e ... if

th e actio nw as ev enj u stif iedp ursu ant to th e o rd [ in ] an ces inth e T o wn sh ip from the onset dateof the a ction.” ( Id. at ¶

5.) W e note that Don al d’s request fo r an i njunc t i on wa s re nde r e d m oot by the s ubs e que nt

r az i ng of the hom e . Se e Sc att e rgood v. P erelm an , 9 4 5 F .2 d6 1 8 , 6 2 1 (3 dC ir. 1 9 9 1 ) (“[ W] h enth e ev ent so u g ht to b e en j o in edin a pre liminar

y injuncti onhas occ urre d, an appealfrom the order denying the prel iminar

y injuncti onis m oo t. ”) . 7 D o n a ld c o n ten d s th a t: h e a n d h is s ib lin g s in f a c t co m p lied w ith in stru c tio n s to v a c c in a te the d o g s li v ing o n the p rop erty ; D o n ald in fa ct att em p ted to clea n u p h is j u n k y ard adj ace ntt o the home; the var i ous compl ai nt s l odged byoffi ci al s aboutcondi t i ons on the pr opertyw er e “f

r i vol ous ; ” off

i ci al s conduct ed “w arr ant l es s ” s ear ches ( even though c o p ies o f th e w a rra n ts u se d a re in th e sta te c o u rt re c o rd ); th e sta te tria l co u rt e rre d in fai l i ng t o appoi ntcouns el t o r epr es entD onal d and hi s s i bl i ngs ; the s t at e tr i al courterr ed 3 in f ail ing to g ive c red en ce to the p eti ti o n sign ed b yloca l r esid en ts t o sav e the P ark s’s h o m e , rath e r th a n to th e p e tit io n sig n e d b yo th e rs to h a v e th e h o m e d e stro y e d ; th e sta te tr i al courterr ed i n al l ow i ng “ques t i onabl e expe r tt es t i m ony ” byan engi neerr et ai ned by th e T o w n s h ip ; a n d th e s ta te c o u rt s “ g ro s s ly f a ile d to f a ir ly re v ie w th is c a s e .” 4 G ra n tin g th e re lief

so u g h t b yD o n a ld in th is s u it w o u ld re q u ire th e D istric t C o u rt to fi nd thatthe s t at e court ’ s l egal and fa ctual det erm i nat i ons ar e err oneous , and ther eby

### Dona l d’ s m ot i on for an “ e m e rge nc y

i njunc t i on” i n the a

ppe a lat No. 10- 1938, and 5 

### the m ot i ons fi l e d by

e a c h a ppe l l ant for “ c ont e m pt , ” ar e de ni e d. The m ot i on by c e rt a i n of th e ap p ellees inN o . 1 0 -1 9 3 8 f o r summ ary

af f irm an ce is d en iedas m o o t. 8 r enderthatj udgm enti neff ectual . See FO C U S, 75 F. 3d at840; s ee a l s o T al i afe rr o v. D a rb yT w p . Z o n in g B d ., 4 5 8 F .3 d 1 8 1 , 1 9 2 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (R o o k e r-F e ld m a n a p p lies “ if th e re lie f re q u e s te d e f

f e c tiv e ly w o u ld re v e rs e a s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n o r v o id its ru lin g ” ). A fede r al di s tr i ctcourthas no author i tyt o conductappel l at e r evi ew of a j udgm entr ender ed b yth e s t a t e c o u r t s ; s u c h r e v i e w mu s tb e s o u g h td i r e c t l yi n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me C our t . I n r e M ader a, 586 F. 3d at232. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , ther efor e, pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed D onal d’ s compl ai ntforl ack of fede r al s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on. III . F o r th e f

o re g o in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t. 5