T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata an d co ll ateral estop p el. T h e c o u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r1,2006 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

DAVI D J AC KS ON, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. VE RA J AC KS ON, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 1237 ( D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado) ( D . C. N o. 05 - CV - 02 03 3 W Y D - CB S)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efo re M UR P HY , S EY M OUR , and M c CO NNELL , C ir c u it J u d g e s . A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s courthas det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe 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 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. Pr ocee di ng pro se , D avid Jackson ap peals the d i stri ctcou rt ’s su a sp o n te d ism issal of

the c ivil ri g h ts co m p lai n t he b rou g h t aga inst his fo rm er w ife, V eraC as e 2001D R 002767 i s a s t at e- courtm att eri ni t i at ed byJ acks on as 1 Pet i t i oner . I n the O ct ober14, 2004 rul i ng, thi s m att erw as r es ol ved i n favorof th e R e sp o n d e n t. -2- Ja c k so n , alle g in g sh e c o llu d e d w ith C o lo ra d o sta te ju d g e s to d e p riv e h im o f h is fe d e ra l co n stitu tio n a l rig h ts in p ro c e e d in g s re late d to th e d iss o lu tio n o f th e ir m arr i age. J acks on s ought : ( 1) an or ders ett i ng as i de the dec r ee of di s s ol ut i on of m a rria g e e n ter e d b yth e C o lo ra d o sta te c o u rt a n d re q u irin g th e d e fe n d a n t to p o st a $350, 000. 00 bond, and ( 2) “emer gencyr evi ew of C ol or ado A r apahoe D i s tr i ct cas e 2001D R 002767 O ct ober 14, 2004 rul i ng. ” T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the 1 s ui tw i th pr ej udi ce, concl udi ng i tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on underthe R ooker - Feldm an d o c tr in e . R ooker - Feldm an i s a j ur i s di ct i onal barw hi ch pr ohi bi t s fede r al r evi ew of s ta te c o u rt d e c is io n s . C r ut chf i eld v. C ountr

yw i de Hom e Loans , 389 F. 3d 1144, 1 1 4 7 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). R ooker - Feldm an p re c lu d e s “ a p a rtylo sin g in sta te c o u rt .

. . f ro m se e k in g w h a t in su b sta n c e w o u ld b e a p p e llate re v iew o f th e sta te j udgm enti n a U ni t ed St at es di s tr i ctcourt , bas ed on the l os i ng party ’ s cl ai m that the s t at e j udgm enti t s el f vi ol at es the l os er ’ s fede r al r i ght s . ” Jo h n s o n v . De G r andy , 5 1 2 U . S . 9 9 7 , 1 0 0 5 -06 (19 9 4 ). T h is co u rtrev iew s a d istri ct co u rt ’s d is m is s a l fo r l a c k o f

s u bje c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n d e n o v o . Johns on v. R odr igues , 2 2 6 F .3 d 1 1 0 3 , 1 1 0 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). A d e n o v o re v iew o f th e re c o rd in th is c a se re v e a ls th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t, reg a rd les s o f h o w h isI n hi s appel l at e br i ef, J acks on as s ert s hi s s ui ti nvol ves ques t i ons 2 c o n c e rn in g h is rig h t to a w rit o f h a b e a s c o rp u s. N o su c h c laim s w e re ra ise d in J a c k s o n ’s c o m p la in t. -3- c o m p la in t is w o rd e d , J a c k s o n is s e e k in g re v ie w o f s ta te c o u rt ju d g m e n ts . A c c o rd in g ly, R ooker - Feldm an bars his cl ai m s. 2 T he di s tr i ctcourt , how ever , err oneous l ydi s m i s s ed J acks on’ s compl ai nt w ith p reju d ic e . See Bre r eton v. B ount i f ulC i t y C or p. , 4 3 4 F .3 d 1 2 1 3 , 1 2 1 4 (1 0 th C i r . 2006) ( “A l ongs t andi ng l i ne of c as es fr om thi s ci r cui thol ds thatw her e the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s es an ac t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on, as i tdi d her e, the di s m i s s al m us tbe w i thoutpr ej udi ce. ”) . A ccor di ngl y , the j udgm entof the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rtfor the D i stri ctof C olor ado i s m odi fi ed t o r efl ectthat di s m i s s al of J acks on’ s cl ai m s i s w i thoutpr ej udi ce. A s s o m odi fi ed, the j udgm ent i s affi rm ed . J acks on’ s r eques tt o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis on app eal i s deni ed . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT
M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge