Opinion ID: 4446415
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reasonable Opportunity to Litigate

Text: The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides a safeguard for plaintiﬀs. The Swartzes must have had a “reasonable opportunity” to litigate in state court the claims they are bringing in their federal case for the bar to apply. See Brokaw v. Weaver, 305 F.3d 660, 668 (7th Cir. 2002). The Swartzes did not argue the Rooker-Feldman issue substantively in their brieﬁng but did contest whether they were ever provided reasonable opportunity to litigate the existence of probable cause to seize 10 No. 18-3260 their animals. Speciﬁcally, the Swartzes contend that: (1) the initial probable cause ﬁnding was ex parte; (2) under an Indiana statute, they were entitled to a post-seizure adversary hearing on probable cause; and (3) they were denied the opportunity to argue about the animals’ welfare at any point. A review of the record shows that they had multiple opportunities to litigate whether the animals should have been seized, and thus Rooker-Feldman applies. The ex parte nature of the initial probable cause hearing does not prevent the application of Rooker-Feldman because the Swartzes had other opportunities to litigate the issue. See O’Malley v. Litscher, 465 F.3d 799, 804 (7th Cir. 2006) (applying Rooker-Feldman where plaintiﬀ had other opportunities to challenge the decision and noting that “it does not matter that the order was ex parte”). 2 First, the Swartzes were provided an eﬀective opportunity to litigate the probable cause issue by contesting the state’s 2The Swartzes argue that Indiana Code § 35-46-3-6 (the statute addressing the seizure of animals) entitled them to a post-seizure adversarial hearing on probable cause. But read in context, the statute contemplates a post-deprivation probable cause hearing only if such a hearing had not already occurred. Subsection (a) allows “[a]ny law enforcement officer” who has probable cause to believe an animal is being neglected to “take custody of the animal.” No judicial hearing is required. In this case, Defendant Lee took a belt-and-suspenders approach by securing a judicial probable cause finding before attempting the seizure. This is why the state court judge denied the Swartzes’ motion for a post-seizure probable cause hearing: the court had already determined that probable cause existed. Rooker-Feldman applies because the Swartzes had reasonable later opportunities to litigate their claims, regardless of whether they were afforded any specific statutory hearing under § 35-46-3-6. No. 18-3260 11 motion for authority to permanently place the livestock. The Swartzes were represented by counsel, took part in two adversary hearings on the issue, and were able to take relevant discovery before the court entered any order, including the deposition of Lovejoy (whose allegedly false and incorrect report formed the crux of the alleged conspiracy to seize the Swartzes’ animals). The court still found that its original probable cause ﬁnding was correct and that the animals should be placed elsewhere. The Swartzes could have provided their own evidence of the falsity of the animal welfare report, or evidence rebutting the state’s evidence of animal neglect, but failed to do so. Second, the Swartzes could have ﬁled motions for reconsideration or to alert the court to new evidence, or used any other method by which litigants in Indiana may place arguments on the record. The Swartzes have not alleged any meaningful restraint on their ability to litigate in the state court. Third, the Swartzes failed to appeal the state trial court’s orders in the state appellate court, which would have constituted another reasonable opportunity to litigate whether their animals should have been seized. See Gilbert v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 591 F.3d 896, 901–02 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[It] is enough to demonstrate that [plaintiﬀ] did have a ‘reasonable opportunity’ to pursue his due process claim in Illinois state court” where plaintiﬀ failed to pursue right to appeal claim to Illinois Supreme Court). Indiana courts have considered appeals from disgruntled litigants whose animals were conﬁscated under Indiana Code § 35-46-3-6. See, e.g., Wolﬀ v. State, 87 N.E.3d 528, 532–34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017); Miller v. State, 952 N.E.2d 292, 294–97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 12 No. 18-3260 To be sure, there is a line of Seventh Circuit cases preserving civil rights claims in the face of allegedly improper probable cause ﬁndings due to a lack of reasonable opportunity to litigate. But these cases involved plaintiﬀs who lacked the Swartzes’ several chances to pursue their claims in state court. A leading case is Brokaw, in which the plaintiﬀ claimed that county oﬃcials had conspired to make false claims of child neglect to justify removing her from her parent’s care. 305 F.3d at 662. There, this Court reversed and remanded a lower court’s dismissal under Rooker-Feldman, arguing that the plaintiﬀ had no reasonable opportunity to pursue her claims regarding purportedly false neglect reports at the state level. In Brokaw, unlike this case, the state court proceeded under Illinois’ Juvenile Court Act, which allowed the court to “consider only the question whether the minor is abused, neglected, delinquent, in need of supervision, or dependent.” Id. at 668. Moreover, after the plaintiﬀ had been seized, the court ordered her to remain in foster care during a hearing at which her parents were present, but not represented by counsel, allowed to speak, call witnesses, or cross-examine witnesses. Id. at 663. This is all contrary to the Swartzes’ claims, as the Swartzes were represented by counsel, attended hearings, were allowed to testify, and took discovery. In sum, this case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine at its outset. 3 3 The Swartzes’ pro se complaint contains Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It also states that “[f]urther, the folks at Heartland have posted several libelous statements against Plaintiff disparaging their reputation … These statements were made in a malicious attempt to take and keep or distribute Plaintiffs livestock.” The district court determined that the Swartzes had pleaded an Indiana state No. 18-3260 13