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 erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

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

### A u gu s t23,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT AN SELM O A . CH AV EZ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. WI L L I AM B. RI CH AR DS ON,

D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 2078 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 06 - 12 25 BB / RH S)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , AN DE RS ON , and BA LD OCK , C i rcui tJudg es. A ns el m o A . C havez , appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al o f h is c o m p lain t fo r la c k o f ju risd ictio n . W e h a v e ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r h is a p p e a l u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d we a ffi r m. M r . C havez ’ s cl ai m r el at es t o t he D emocr at i c pr i m aryel ect i on fort he offi ce of

governori n N ew M exi co, w hi ch w as hel d i n J une 2006. D efe ndantSee Rookerv. F i del i t y Tr us tC o. , 263 U . S. 413 ( 1923) , and D . C . C t . of App. 1 v. Feldm an , 4 6 0 U . S . 4 6 2 (19 8 3 ). -2- R i char ds on w on t he D emocr at i c nomi nat i on i n t hatel ect i on and al s o w on t he gener al el ect i on i n N ovember2006. M r . C havez w as a w r i t e- i n candi dat e i n t he D emocr at i c pr i m ary . H e cl ai m s t hat , underN ew M exi co l aw , M r . R i char ds on w as n o t an e lig ib le c a n d id a te in th e p rim a ryb e c a u se h e sig n e d h is n a m e o n c e rta in el ect i on- r el at ed form s as “B i l l R i char ds on” r athert han hi s ful l name of “W i l l i am B la in e R ic h a rd s o n .” M r . C havez fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nti n di s t r i ctcour ton D ece m ber15, 2006, s eeki ng t o s etas i de the D emocr at i c pr i m arynom i nat i on and the gene r al el ect i on o f M r. R ich a rd so n , an d a sk in g th a t M r. C h a v e z b e n a m e d th e w in n e r o f b o th el ect i ons . A l t ernat i vel y , he s oughtan aw ar d of $440, 000, w hi ch he c l ai m ed w as equal t o t he N ew M exi co governor ’ s compensa t i on forfoury ear s . T he di s t r i ct cour ti s s ued an or dert o s how caus e w hyt he ca s e s houl d notbe di s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on. M r . C havez r es ponded, as s er t i ng t hatj ur i s di ct i on w as pr operunder28 U . S. C . § 1331 beca us e hi s compl ai ntr ai s ed fe der al qu est i on s. T he di s t r i ctcour tdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on, fi ndi ng no j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1331 and al s o concl udi ng t hati tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on bas ed on the R ooker - Feldm an 1 doctr i ne, underw hi ch l ow erfede r al cour t s do nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “c ase s b rou g h t bystat e-c o u rtlose rs co m p lai n ing o f injuri es c au sed b ystat e-c o u rt-3-

j udgm ent s r ender ed befor e the di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs comm ence d and i nvi t i ng di s t r i ctcour tr evi ew and r ej ect i on of thos e j udgm ent s . ” Exxon Mobi lC or p. v. Saudi B as i c Indus . C or p. , 544 U . S. 280, 284 ( 2005) . I n hol di ng R ooker - Feldm an a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r tfo u n d t h a tM r . Ch a v e z h a d fi l e d t h e s a me cl ai m i n N ew M exi co s t at e court . H i s s t at e- cour tcompl ai ntw as di s m i s s ed, and the d ism issal w as a ffirm ed o n ap p ea l bythe N ew M ex ico S u p rem e C o u rt , b efo re he fi l ed hi s fede r al - cour tcompl ai nt . T he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatM r . C havez so u g h t, in h is fed era l- co u rtac ti o n , to o v erturn the N ew M ex ico s tat e-c o u rt rul i ngs , and ther efor e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d nothave j ur i s di ct i on. M r . C havez filed a tim e lya p p e a l. W e r evi ew 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 d e n o v o . Mann v. B oatr ight , 477 F. 3d 1140, 1145 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). In h is a p p e a l b rie f, M r. C h a v e z first a rg u e s th e m e rits o f h is cl ai m and then he r epea t s one of the bas es forfede r al - ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on under § 1331 t hathe as s er t ed i n t he di s t r i ctcour t . B uthe does notaddr es s t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s al t ernat i ve gr ound fordi s m i s s al bas ed on the R ooker - Feldm an d o c tr in e . M r. C h a v e z h a s th e re fo re w a iv e d h is ri g h t to a p p e a l th a t is s u e . See S t ate Fa rm F i r e & C as . C o. v. Mhoon , 31 F. 3d 979, 984 n. 7 ( 10t h C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng i s s ue w ai ved byappel l ant ’ s fai l ur e t o r ai s e i ti n openi ng br i ef) . M or eover , w e nee d not addr es s t he r emai ni ng ar gum ent s M r . C havez m akes on appea l beca us e thati s s ue, s ta n d in g a lo n e , w a s s u ffic ie n t to d iv e s t th e d is tr ic t c o u rto f ju ri s d ic tio n . SeeE v en if M r. C h av ez h ad n o t w aive d h is ap p ea l of the d istri ct co u rt ’s 2 di s m i s s al bas ed on the R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne, w e w oul d aff i r m , fi ndi ng no err ori n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s rul i ng on t hati s s ue. -4- B ones v. Honeywel lInt ’ l, Inc. , 366 F. 3d 869, 877 ( 10t h C i r . 2004) ( appl y i ng w ai verand uphol di ng s um m aryj udgm enton one of di s t r i ctcour t ’ s al t ernat i ve g ro u n d s w h ich a p p e llan t fa iled to a p p e a l); G FFC o rp . v. A ss o c ia tedWh o les a le G r ocers , Inc. , 1 3 0 F . 3 d 1 3 8 1 , 1 3 8 7 -88 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) (sam e). 2 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 AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

B obbyR . B al dock C i r cui tJ udge