Opinion ID: 4517871
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Federal Court Suit

Text: Shortly after Bellco filed a motion for summary judgment in the Arapahoe County litigation, McDonald sued Eagle County in federal court. Days later, McDonald attempted to avoid summary judgment by filing a pleading in the federal suit titled “Notice of Removal . . . Complaint and Jury Demand,” id. at 246, which asserted four claims against Bellco. From that point forward, McDonald maintained—and continues to maintain—there was no state proceeding because the Arapahoe County litigation had been removed to federal court. 3 Next, McDonald filed an amended complaint in the federal suit adding Bellco as a defendant. The amended complaint also alleged four claims against Eagle County, all of which were based on the outcome in the Eagle Court litigation: (1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by “fail[ing] its obligation to obey the Court of Appeals Order [to provide] due process and equal protection” and by “refusing to conclude the [litigation in Eagle Court], id. at 314; (2) under § 1983 for violating his Fourth Amendment rights by “knowingly fil[ing] and issu[ing] [a] writ allowing [Zions] to seize Plaintiff’s bank accounts to financially prevent [him] from pursuing his civil case,” R., Vol. I at 316; (3) under § 1983 for violating “the United States Constitution” by “knowingly and improperly refus[ing] under color of state law to allow Plaintiff to present his case against [Zions],” id. at 317; and (4) under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiring with the clerk of the Eagle Court and Zions to violate his civil rights. As to Bellco, McDonald realleged the failed defenses and/or counterclaims he raised in the Arapahoe County suit: (1) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to dismiss its collection suit and “conspir[ing] with [the] state court to prosecute a civil action out-of-time in violation of Colorado’s statute of limitations,” id. at 320; (2) violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (3) violation of Colorado’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (4) violation of his First Amendment rights to privacy “by trespassing his gated property to illegally search and seize Plaintiff’s personal property,” id. at 324. 4 D. Disposition of Federal and Arapahoe County Litigation Thereafter, the Arapahoe County district court determined McDonald’s attempted removal was improper and entered summary judgment in favor of Bellco on its collection claim. McDonald appealed. While McDonald’s appeal was pending, Eagle County and Bellco moved to dismiss the federal suit on several grounds. Relevant to the issues on appeal, the magistrate judge recommended the following: (1) dismissal of the claims against Eagle County for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1; (2) dismissal of the claims against Bellco under the Younger abstention doctrine2 if the state-court proceedings had not concluded, or under Rooker-Feldman if the proceedings were completed; and (3) an award of attorney fees to Eagle County and Bellco. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations, McDonald argued that Rooker-Feldman and Younger did not apply, and in any event, the dismissal should be without prejudice. On de novo review, the district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss the claims with prejudice under Rooker-Feldman and Younger. The district court reviewed the recommendation to award attorney fees for clear error and affirmed. 1 See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 2 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 5 An “update” recently filed by McDonald confirms the Arapahoe County suit is still ongoing. Shortly after the federal district court entered its order in March 2019, the Colorado Court of Appeals decided McDonald’s appeal, affirming the state court’s judgment. Bellco Credit Union v. McDonald, No. 18CA0689, 2019 WL 1873422 (Colo. App. Apr. 25, 2019) (unpublished). When the Colorado Supreme Court denied certiorari review, McDonald v. Bellco Credit Union, No. 19SC475, 2019 WL 4643619 (Colo. Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished), McDonald filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which has not been resolved. McDonald v. Bellco Credit Union, 2020 WL 290965 (U.S. Jan. 15, 2020) (No. 19-895).