UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

STEVEN A. DELOGE, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

MICHAEL K. DAVIS, Chief Justice of the 

Wyoming Supreme Court; E. JAMES 

BURKE, former Chief Justice of the 

Wyoming Supreme Court, in their official 

capacities, 

 Defendants - Appellees. 

No. 21-8025 

(D.C. No. 0:21-CV-00076-SWS) 

(D. Wyo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Plaintiff Steven DeLoge is serving six consecutive life sentences in the 

Wyoming Department of Corrections for his convictions on multiple counts of 

second-degree sexual assault. Plaintiff is a prolific filer in Wyoming’s state courts, 

unsuccessfully challenging various aspects of his convictions and sentence. 

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 30, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 21-8025 Document: 010110625858 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 Page: 1
2 

Following one of Plaintiff’s appeals, the Wyoming Supreme Court issued an order 

barring Plaintiff from filing in any Wyoming state court without first obtaining leave 

from the Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court.1

 Plaintiff then sought leave 

many times to file various post-conviction actions, but each time the Chief Justice 

denied Plaintiff’s request. Unhappy with these results, Plaintiff sued the current 

Chief Justice and a former Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court in federal 

court, alleging that the Wyoming Supreme Court’s order barring him from filing and 

the Chief Justices’ later orders denying him leave violated the First and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory 

judgment and injunction requiring the Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court 

to permit him to file his post-conviction actions in Wyoming state court. 

Concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff’s claims, the 

district court dismissed the claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim. We 

agree with the district court that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to Plaintiff’s 

claims, but we conclude that the doctrine deprives the district court of subject-matter 

jurisdiction. Thus, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we vacate the 

judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.2

1

 Before the order went into effect, the Wyoming Supreme Court permitted 

Plaintiff to file objections, which the court overruled. 

2

 The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma 

pauperis because the district court determined that Plaintiff presented no 

nonfrivolous ground to appeal. Plaintiff has renewed his request to proceed in forma 

pauperis in this court. Although we agree that Plaintiff presents only frivolous 

Appellate Case: 21-8025 Document: 010110625858 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 Page: 2
3 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), the district court must review prisoner actions 

and dismiss any that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. While 

reviewing this action, the district court concluded that Plaintiff’s claims should be 

dismissed for failure to state a claim because they are barred by the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. 

Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). In doing 

so, we construe Plaintiff’s pro se pleadings liberally, Diversey v. Schmidly, 738 F.3d 

1196, 1199 (10th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted), but we do not construct arguments for 

Plaintiff or advocate on his behalf, Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 

1991). 

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack subject-matter 

jurisdiction to consider appeals of state-court judgments. Kline v. Biles, 861 F.3d 

1177, 1180 (10th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (citation omitted). The doctrine applies 

when a federal plaintiff pursues a claim that an adverse state-court judgment violated 

his federal rights and seeks what in substance is appellate review of the state 

judgment. Id. (citation omitted). When determining whether a plaintiff’s claims seek 

appellate review of a state-court judgment, we focus particularly on the relief sought. 

Mo’s Express, LLC v. Sopkin, 441 F.3d 1229, 1237 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation 

arguments that his claims should not have been dismissed, Plaintiff is correct that the 

dismissal should have been without prejudice. We therefore grant Plaintiff’s motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis. In doing so, we remind Plaintiff that he must continue 

to make partial payments until he has paid the entire filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(b). 

Appellate Case: 21-8025 Document: 010110625858 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 Page: 3
4 

omitted). Rooker-Feldman generally applies when the requested relief would reverse 

or undo the state court’s judgment. See id.

Plaintiff’s claims fall under Rooker-Feldman. Plaintiff sued a current and 

former Chief Justice of the Wyoming Supreme Court, alleging that their orders and 

the Wyoming Supreme Court’s orders violated his federal rights. To redress his 

alleged injuries, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment and an injunction requiring 

the Justices to reverse those orders. Plaintiff argues that Rooker-Feldman does not 

apply because the Wyoming Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the orders he 

challenges. Plaintiff cites no case or statute creating an exception to the RookerFeldman doctrine by granting lower federal courts appellate jurisdiction to review the 

jurisdictional basis of a state-court judgment. Plaintiff can challenge the 

constitutionality or the jurisdictional basis of state-court orders only through the 

proper appellate channels. Because Plaintiff seeks what in substance is appellate 

review of the Wyoming Supreme Court’s orders, we and the district court lack 

jurisdiction to consider his claims further. 

Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars lower federal courts from 

exercising jurisdiction over challenges to state-court judgments, the district court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which 

relief can a be granted—a dismissal on the merits. See Federated Dep’t Stores v. 

Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981) (“The dismissal for failure to state a claim . . . 

is a judgment on the merits.” (quotation omitted)); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 

434 F.3d 1213, 1219 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that a dismissal is with prejudice 

Appellate Case: 21-8025 Document: 010110625858 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 Page: 4
5 

when the dismissal is on the merits). A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction must be 

without prejudice because it is not an adjudication on the merits.3 Brereton, 434 F.3d 

at 1216. When the district court determined that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine 

applies to Plaintiff’s claims, the court should have dismissed the claims for lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction and without prejudice. Accordingly, we VACATE the 

judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to dismiss Plaintiff’s 

claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 

VACATED and REMANDED. 

Entered for the Court 

Joel M. Carson III 

Circuit Judge 

3

 Dismissal without prejudice, however, does not necessarily mean that a 

plaintiff may amend his complaint. See Brereton, 434 F.3d at 1219. District courts 

need not permit a plaintiff to amend his complaint to cure jurisdictional defects when 

doing so would be futile even though the district court dismissed the claims without 

prejudice. See id.

Appellate Case: 21-8025 Document: 010110625858 Date Filed: 12/30/2021 Page: 5