UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________ 

JOSEPHINE McGOWAN, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

WAL-MART STORES, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 18-1397 

(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-01564-LTB) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Ms. Josephine McGowan asserted pro se claims against Wal-Mart 

Stores for a slip-and-fall on its property. The district court dismissed the 

action without prejudice, ruling that the claims were barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine and Colorado’s statute of limitations. Though the 

 

* Because oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of 

this appeal, we have decided the appeal based on Ms. McGowan’s brief and 

the record. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

 This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except 

under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. 

But the order and judgment may be cited as otherwise appropriate. See Fed. 

R. App. P. 32.1(a) and Tenth Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 19, 2019

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine doesn’t apply, the claims are untimely. So we 

affirm the dismissal. 

1. Background 

Ms. McGowan alleges that she injured herself in 2013 when she 

slipped in a Wal-Mart store. She first sued Wal-Mart in Colorado state 

court. Almost five years after the alleged slip-and-fall, Ms. McGowan 

brought this federal lawsuit against Wal-Mart. 

2. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine 

The district court ruled that Ms. McGowan’s claims were 

jurisdictionally barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. On this issue, we 

engage in de novo review. Erlandson v. Northglenn Mun. Ct., 528 F.3d 785, 

788–89 (10th Cir. 2008). In conducting this review, we conclude that the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. 

“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal suits that amount to 

appeals of state-court judgments.” Bolden v. City of Topeka, 441 F.3d 1129, 

1139 (10th Cir. 2006). This prohibition is triggered when the state court’s 

judgment caused the alleged injury. Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 

1229, 1237 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus, the doctrine applies when the plaintiff 

asks a federal court to alter a state court’s judgment. See, e.g., Mann v. 

Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1147 (10th Cir. 2007) (noting that requests for 

federal declaratory judgments nullifying state court orders “are precisely 

the types of claims encompassed by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine”). 
3 

But the doctrine applies only to claims resting on allegations 

involving the state-court proceedings. If a federal action merely realleges 

claims adjudicated earlier in state court, the law of preclusion applies 

rather than the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic 

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292 (2005); Bolden, 441 F.3d at 1139. 

Ms. McGowan’s federal claims do not rest on a state-court order; in 

fact, her federal complaint does not even mention the state-court lawsuit 

against Wal-Mart. Though the claims in the federal and state lawsuits 

appear duplicative, the potential defect in the federal suit would involve 

claim preclusion rather than the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1

 So the district 

court erred in basing the dismissal on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

3. Statute of Limitations 

The district court also regarded Ms. McGowan’s federal claims as 

untimely. We agree. 

As the district court explained, Colorado law provides a two-year 

period of limitations. Ms. McGowan alleges that the wrongful act occurred 

 

1

 Claim preclusion is not jurisdictional. See Skinner v. Switzer, 562 

U.S. 521, 532 (2011) (“If a federal plaintiff presents an independent claim, 

it is not an impediment to the exercise of federal jurisdiction that the same 

or a related question was earlier aired between the parties in state court.” 

(quotations and brackets omitted)).
4 

in 2013, and she waited almost five years to sue.2

 So the action is timebarred. 

4. Allegations of Conspiracy 

For the first time on appeal, Ms. McGowan generally alleges a 

conspiracy between Wal-Mart and at least some of the attorneys who 

represented her in state court. Ms. McGowan asks our court to investigate. 

Appellant’s Br. at 2–3. 

Ms. McGowan forfeited this claim by failing to raise it in district 

court. Pro se litigants are bound by the generally applicable rules of 

procedure, Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840–41 

(10th Cir. 2005), and we consider arguments newly raised on appeal only 

in the “most unusual circumstances,” Carney v. Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 

875 F.3d 1347, 1351 (10th Cir. 2017). Ms. McGowan has not identified any 

“unusual circumstances” here, so we decline to consider this newly 

presented allegation of a conspiracy. 

 

2

 The district court gave Ms. McGowan an opportunity to argue 

equitable tolling. But she did not present such an argument. 
5 

* * * 

The district court properly dismissed the action as untimely, so we 

affirm.3

 

Entered for the Court 

Robert E. Bacharach 

Circuit Judge 

 

3

 A dismissal based on timeliness would ordinarily be with prejudice. 

See United States ex rel. Conner v. Salina Reg. Health Ctr., Inc., 543 F.3d 

1211, 1226 (10th Cir. 2008) (concluding that because the state-law claims 

were barred by the statute of limitations, the district court should have 

dismissed these claims with prejudice). Here the dismissal was without 

prejudice. But because we are upholding dismissal based on timeliness, the 

dismissal functions effectively as a dismissal with prejudice. See 

AdvantEdge Bus. Grp. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker & Assocs., Inc., 552 F.3d 

1233, 1236 (10th Cir. 2009) (“This court has recognized that a dismissal 

without prejudice can have the practical effect of a dismissal with 

prejudice if the statute of limitations has expired.”).