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 d e te rm in a tio n o f

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 hi s cas e i s t her efor e or der ed s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a and c ol 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 cons i s t entw i t h Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

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

### A u gu s t22,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
J I AYANG HUA, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. U N IV E R S IT Y O F U T A H ; D A V ID P E R S H IN G , V ice P re sid e n t; UNI VE RS I T Y OF UT AH SOCI OLO GY DEPA RTM ENT; FREDERI CK RH OD EW ALT, S o ciolo g yD ep artm en t C h air; SOCI OLO GY GR AD UA TE COM M I TT EE ; GEORGE M I LL ER, G rad u ate D ir ec tor, R espon den t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 07- 4070 ( D. C. No . 2 : 0 6 - CV - 0 0 6 6 2 - DAK)

( D . U t ah)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. J i ay ang H ua, an expe l l ed s oci ol ogygr aduat e s tudentatt he U ni ver s i tyof U tah , file d tw o u n su c c e ss f u l pr o s e l aw s ui t s i n U t ah s t at e court s agai ns tt he U ni ver s i t yand s ever al of i t s offi ci al s , chal l engi ng hi s expul s i on on both fede r al-2-

and st at e l aw groun ds. U nh app yw i th the r esul t s i n h i s st at e cou rtproceed i ng s, M r . H ua then fi l ed a pr o s e compl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe D i s t r i ctof U t ah, es s ent i al l yat t empt i ng t o appea l the s t at e court s ’ deci s i ons . T he d is tr ic t c o u rt h e ld , in tera lia , t hatM r . H ua fa i l ed t o s t at e a c l ai m due t o the R ooker
- Feldm an d o ctri n e. A lt ern ati v ely , ith eld th at eith er r es j udi cata (c laim pr ecl us i on) ort he U t ah s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons barr ed hi s fede r al act i on. W e agr ee a n d a ffi r m. * * * I n M ay1999, t he Soci ol ogyD epart m entatthe U ni ver s i tyof U t ah expe l l ed Ji ay ang H ua from i t s graduate pr og ram for fai l ure t o m ake suffi ci ent pr og res s to w a rd h is d o c to ra l d e g re e . O v e r a y e a r la ter , M r. H u a a p p e a led th is d e c isio n to t he depa r t m ent , w hi ch s t ood byi t s deci s i on t o expel hi m . M r . H ua then appe al ed t o t he C ol l ege of

Soci al and B ehavi or al Sci ence A cade m i c M i s conduct C o m m itt e e , w h ich d e n ied M r. H u a ’s a p p e a l in w riting a f ter g ra n tin g h im a f

u ll e v id e n tiary he a rin g in A p ril 2 0 0 1 . B o th th e d e a n a n d v ice p re sid e n t o f a c a d e m ic affai r s r evi ew ed and de ni ed M r . H ua’ s appea l befor e the U ni ver s i tyi s s ued a f i nal w r i t t en deni al i n M ar ch 2002. I n A ugus t2002, M r . H ua fi l ed a l aw s ui ti n s t at e courtagai ns tthe U ni ver s i t y , i t s vi ce pr es i dentforaca demi c affai r s , the s oci ol ogydepart m ent , and it s ch air, see k ing to rev isi t th e U n iversity ’s de cisi o n to ex p el him . T h e U tah c o u rt di s m i s s ed M r . H ua’ s l aw s ui tforl ack of j ur i s di ct i on underthe U t ah G overnm ent-3-

I m m uni t yA ctand the U t ah A dm i ni s tr at i ve Pr ocedur es A ct . I ns t ead of appea l i ng t his dis m i ssal , M r. H ua b rough ta secon d st at e cou rtl aw sui ti n July20 03 against t he U ni ver s i t y , t he s oci ol ogydepart m ent , i t s chai r , and the gr aduat e pr ogr am di r ect or . H er e, M r . H ua aga i n s oughtr evi ew of the U ni ver s i ty ’ s deci s i on t o expel him , t ho ug h h e al so add ed clai m s for m on eydam ages, al l eging em oti on al dis tres s a n d v io latio n s o f

h is fe d e ra l rig h ts, in c lu d in g u n d e r th e T a k in g s C lau se . T h e sta te tr ial co u rtthis t im e h eld th at U tah’s fo u r-y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s b arred M r. H ua’ s fede r al cl ai m s and re s ju d ica ta barr ed hi s s t at e cl ai m s . M r . H ua appe al ed t o t he U t ah appe l l at e court , w hi ch affi r m ed; both the U t ah Supr eme C our tand U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our tdecl i ned t o t ake hi s cas e. I n A ugus t2006, M r . H ua fi l ed the pr es entact i on i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof U t ah, s eeki ng r evi ew of hi s expul s i on pr ocee di ngs and s t at e courts ui t s , al l egi ng vi ol at i ons of hi s fede r al r i ght s , and s eeki ng damages . T he di s t r i ctcour thel d thatthe R ooker - Feldm an doctr i ne p re v e n te d it f

ro m e n te rt a in in g h is s u it. See Bolden v. C i t y of Topeka, Kan. , 441 F. 3d 1129, 1139 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( “The R ooker - Feldm an d o c trin e p ro h ib its fe d e r a l s u i t s t h a ta m o u n tt o a p p e a l s o f s t a t e - c o u r tj u d g m e n t s . ” ) . A l t e rn a t i v e l y, th e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t re s ju d ica ta (c la im p re c lu s io n ) fo re c lo s e d its re v ie w . See M A C TE C, Inc. v. G or el i ck , 427 F. 3d 821, 831 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( “The doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta , orcl ai m pr ecl us i on, w i l l pr eventa partyfr om r el i t i gat i ng a l egal cl ai m t hatw as orcoul d have be en the s ubj ectof a pr evi ous l yi s s ued fi nalT he di s t r i ctcour tal s o found M r . H ua’ s compl ai ntfr i vol ous under28 1 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtt hatM r . H ua fa ils to sta te a c laim u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (e )(2 )(B )(ii), w e n e e d n o t ad d re ss its al t ernat i ve fr i vol ous nes s rul i ng. W e g ra n t M r. H u a ’s m o tio n to m a k e “ tec h n ica l co rre c tio n s” to h is 2 (c o n tin u e d ...) -4- j udgm ent . ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I ndeed, the di s tr i ctcour thel d that( 1) t he Ut a h s t a t e c o u r t s i s s u e d fi n a l j u d g me n t s o n th e me r i t s ; ( 2 ) M r . Hu a s u e d th e s a me par t i es as i n t he U t ah s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs ; and ( 3) M r . H ua br oughtan i d e n t i c a l c a u s e o f

a c t i o n i n fe d e r a l c o u r tth a th e b r o u g h ti n s t a t e c o u r t . F i n a l l y, t he di s t r i ctcour thel d M r . H ua’ s fede r al l aw s ui tal s o s uffe r ed fr om fat al lim ita tio n s p ro b le m s . See U t ah C ode A nn. § 78- 12- 25( 3) ( pr ovi di ng four - y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons “forr el i ef nototherw i s e pr ovi ded byl aw ”) . T hus , the d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d w ith p reju d ic e M r. H u a ’s c o m p la in t, u n d e r, in tera lia , 28 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) ( i i ) , fo r fa i l u r e t o s t a t e a c l a i m. 1 T he ch arges l eveled i n M r. H ua’s com plai nt fal l i nto three broad ca t ego ri es: ( 1) t hos e s eeki ng r evi ew of hi s s t at e courtpr ocee di ngs , al l egi ng, forexampl e, abus e of di s cr et i on byU t ah j udges ; ( 2) t hos e s eeki ng di r ectr evi ew of the U n iv e rsity ’s d e c isio n to ter m in a te h im ; an d (3 ) th o se a lleg in g v io latio n s o f h is fede ral ri gh t s. C on strui ng M r. H ua’s pro se c o m p la in t w ith d u e g e n e ro s ity, s ee A ndr ew s v. Heat on , 483 F. 3d 1070, 1076 ( 10th C i r . 2007) , w e affi r m t he di s tr i ct c o u rt’s d ism iss a l fo r su b sta n tiallyth e sa m e re a so n s a s o u tli n e d in its w e llr eas oned opi ni on. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 openi ng br i ef. -5- Fi r s t , as t he di s t r i ctcour texpl ai ned, i ti s notgener al l yourr ol e as fede r al ju d g e s to e n te rt a in a p p e a ls f ro m s ta te c o u rt s . See W r i ght , M i l l er& C ooper , 18B F ed. P rac. & P roc. § 4 46 9. 1 (“T he ‘R oo ker- F el dm an’ doc tri ne . . . est abli shes a n e a rlyre d u n d a n t li m it o n fe d e ra l su bjec t-m a tter ju risd ictio n . T h e b a sic th e o ryis t h a to n l yt h e Un i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me Co u r th a s b e e n g i v e n j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w a s t at e- cour tdeci s i on. T he gene r al s t atut es thates t abl i s h or i gi nal fede r al s ubj ect - m at t erj ur i s di ct i on i n t he di s tr i ctcour t s do notext end t o an ‘ appea l ’ fr om a s t at e- cour tj udgm ent . T hi s doctr i ne i s near l yr edundantbeca us e mostof the act i ons di s m i s s ed forw antof j ur i s di ct i on al s o coul d be r es ol ved byi nvoki ng t he cl ai m - ori s s ue- pr ecl us i on cons equenc es of the s t at e j udgm ent s . ”) . T o the ext ent t hatM r . H ua s eeks t o s etas i de the s t at e courtrul i ngs agai ns thi m – w hi ch he doe s in a ss e rtin g th a t th e sta te c o u rts a p p lied in a p p ro p ria te le g a l sta n d a rd s a n d in q u e stio n in g th e ir ju d g m e n ts a n d d isc re tio n – w e lac k ju risd ictio n to h e a r h is cl ai m s and affi r m di s m i s s al of thos e por t i ons of hi s appea l forl ack of s ubj ect m att er jurisdicti o n u n d er R ooker
- Feldm an . A s t o t he cl ai m s t hatt he U ni ver s i tyunfai r l yexpel l ed hi m – cl ai m s M r . H ua has effect i vel yr ecy cl ed thr ough the U t ah court s and now thr ough the fe der al cour ts y s t em – t he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l yhel d thatthe U t ah s t at e courtdeci s i ons-6-

pr ecl uded M r . H ua’ s fede r al cour tcl ai m s . A ccor di ngl y , w e affi r m di s m i s s al of t ho se cl ai m s as re s ju d ica ta . F i nall y , M r. H ua’s federal cl ai m s ar e t i m e barr ed. E ven i f – m ost gener ous l yt o M r . H ua – the s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons cl ock di d notbegi n t i cki ng u n til M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , w h e n th e U n iv e rsityiss u e d its fin a l o rd e r u p h o ld in g its M ay1 9 9 9 d ec isi o n to ex p el him , h e d id n o t fi le his co m p lai n t i n the d istri ct co u rt unt i l A ugus t2006. T hi s i s cl ear l yout s i de of the appl i cabl e four - y earl i m i t at i ons w ind o w , an d w e a re p o inted to n o relev an t auth o ri tyind icati n g that M r. H u a’s c la im s s h o u ld b e to lle d . A f f i r m ed .
ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

N ei l M . G or s uch C i r cui tJ udge