2006 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 1-11-2006 

# Kret chm ar v

. B a chtle P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3084

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 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 no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Kr e t chm a r v

. B a chtle " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1761. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1761NOT 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 . 05- 3084

________________ 

### GARY L. KRETCHMAR, Appe l l ant v. PA TRI CI A L . BA CH TL E, PR OT HO NO TA RY , BU CK S C OUNT Y PENN SY LVAN I A; G. TH OM AS W I LE Y, CO UR T A DM INI ST RA TO R, BU CK S

CO UN TY , PENN SY LVAN I A; J OHN O R JAN E D OE OF FI CE OF PR OT HO NO TA RY , BU CK S C OUNT Y, PENN SY LVAN I A; J OHN OR JANE DOE 1 OFFI CE OF COURT ADMINI STRATOR, BU CK S C OUNT Y, PENN SY LVAN I A; WARD F . CL ARK, SENI OR JUD GE , CO UR T O F C OM MO N P LE AS OF BU CK S C OUNT Y, PENN SY LVAN I A; SUPERI OR COURT OF PENNSYLVANI A DOCKET NUMBER, 3346 ED A 2 02 , JUN E 5 , 10 03 , ORDE R; MA RYJAN E B OW ES , JUD GE ;

ST EP HEN A . MC EWEN , JR. , JUD GE ; CO RR EA LE F. ST EV EN S, JUDG E; SU PR EM E C OU RT OF PENN SY LV AN IA DOCKET NUMBER, 589 MAL 2003, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 ORDER; RA LP H J . CA PP Y, CH I EF JUS TI CE ; RO NA LD D. CA ST I LL E, JUS TI CE ; HO NO RA BL E JUD GE J . MI CH AE L E AKIN, JUS TI CE ; W I LL I AM H. LA MB , JUS TI CE ; RU SS EL L M . NI GR O, JUS TI CE ;

SAND RASC HU LT Z N EWMAN, JUS TI CE ; SU PE RI OR

CO UR T JUD GE TH OM AS SAYL OR , JUS TI CE ; STEPHEN A. ZAPPALA, JUSTI CE

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 04- cv- 05124) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J . C ur t i s J oyner

_______________________________________2 Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary6, 2006 Be f o r e : BA RRY , STAPLETON A ND GR EENB ERG , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed J anuary11, 2006 )

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C UR I AM G a ryK re tch m a r a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s o rd e r g ra n tin g a p p e llee s’ m o tio n s to di s m i s s hi s compl ai nt . K r et chmar fi l ed a c om pl ai ntpur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a. H e al l eged that appel l ees i m pr oper l yhandl ed a pe t i t i on forhabea s corpus fi l ed i n t he s t at e court s . T he appel l ees fi l ed mot i ons t o di s m i s s . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatr evi ew of s ever al of K r et chmar ’ s cl ai m s w as barr ed byt he R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne and thatK r et chmar f a iled to sta te a c laim a g a in st a p p e llee s W ileya n d B a c h tle b e c a u se h e h a d n o t sh o w n th e ir per s onal i nvol vement i n t he al l eged w r ongful act i ons . K r et chmarfi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. O u r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s a p p lica tio n o f th e R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d o c trin e is p lena ry . P ark v iew A sso c. P artne rship v . C ityo f L eb an o n , 2 2 5 F . 3 d 3 2 1 , 3 2 3 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e R o o k e r-F e ld m a n d o c trin e d e p riv e s a f e d e ra l d istric t co u rt o f

ju risd ictio n to r evi ew , di r ect l yori ndi r ect l y , a s t at e courtadj udi cat i on. See D . C . C our tof A ppeal s v.3

F e ld m a n , 4 6 0 U .S . 4 6 2 (1 9 8 3 ); R o o k e r v . F id e lity T ru s t C o ., 2 6 3 U .S . 4 1 3 , 4 1 6 (1 9 2 3 ). T he Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned thatt hi s doctr i ne appl i es t o “ca s es br oughtby stat e-c o u rtlose rs co m p lai n ing o f in juri es c au sed b ystat e-c o u rtjud g m en ts r en d ere d b ef o re t he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ocee di ngs comm ence d and i nvi t i ng D i s t r i ctC our tr evi ew and r e j e c t i on of

t ho s e j ud gmen t s . ” Exxo n M ob i l Corp. v. Sa ud i Bas i c I nd us . Corp. , __ U . S.

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. 1 5 1 7 , 1 5 2 1 -2 2 (2 0 0 5 ). H er e, K r et chmar al l eged thatappel l ees i m pr oper l ypr oces s ed hi s s t at e habe as corpus pet i t i on as a ci vi l m at t eri ns t ead of as a cr i m i nal m at t er . A ft ert hi s pet i t i on w as deni ed i n A ugus t2002, K r et chmar r efi l ed the s t at e habe as pet i t i on i n t he cr i m i nal d ivisi o n . T h at pe ti ti o n w as d en ied in O ctob er 2 0 0 2 . O n ap p ea l, the S u p erior C o u rt re jec ted K re tch m a r’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s in c o rre c tlyp ro c e ss e d h is pet i t i on. K r ecthm arr ai s ed thi s i s s ue i n a pet i t i on foral l ow ance of appe al w hi ch the Supr eme C our tof Penns y l vani a deni ed i n February2004. I n N ovember2004, K r et chmar fi l ed the i ns t antcompl ai nti n t he D i s t r i ctC our t . H e compl ai ns of i nj ur i es caus ed bys t at ecour tj udgm ent s r ender ed bef or e he f i l ed hi s fede r al compl ai nt . H e cl ear l ys eeks t o have t he fe der al cour t s r evi ew and r ej ectt hos e s t at e- cour tj udgm ent s . T hus , fede r al r evi ew of K re tc h m a r’ s c la im s is b a rr e d b yth e R o o k e r- F e ld m a n d o c tr in e . F o r th e a b o v e re a so n s, a s w e ll as th o se se t f o rth b yth e D istric t C o u rt, w e w ill aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J une 8, 2005 or der . T he appe l l ees ’ m ot i on t o be exc us ed fr om fi l i ng a br i ef i s gr ant ed.