Opinion ID: 297983
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary of the Parties' Contentions.

Text: 34 In order to facilitate understanding of the issues in this appeal, a brief summary of the parties' contentions is in order. It must be kept in mind that the second removal of the State libel action and the motion to remand in that case are still pending in the federal district court and have not yet been acted on. This appeal pertains only to the declaratory judgment holding Judge Chandler's actions in releasing the tan brief of his Official Statement to the newspaper to be judicially immune and enjoining enforcement of the State court judgment and any further litigation relating to this subject matter. 35 Appellant O'Bryan contends that this judgment is nothing more than a disguised review of Judge Austin's remand order, which is prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), 5 as well as a review of the propriety of the State court judgment, which of course is not within the jurisdiction of a federal district court. In addition, he contends that the injunction violated the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 6 36 Judge Chandler, on the other hand, contends that the judgment had no relationship to the prior remand order, in that there was an independent jurisdictional basis for the suit and the pendency of the libel suit in the State court did not defeat this jurisdiction. While the arguments in favor of this independent jurisdiction are not entirely clear, apparently three separate grounds are asserted: (1) that the judgment was necessary to protect and effectuate the Tenth Circuit judgment in O'Bryan v. Chandler, 352 F.2d 987 (10th Cir. 1965); (2) to establish his federal right of judicial immunity; or (3) to protect him as a federal judge from harassing and vexatious litigation. We may note that this last ground is considerably broader, at least in its factual basis, than the first two; and while it was urged at the trial level, it does not appear to have been relied on by the court in rendering its judgment. While we will give it independent consideration later in this opinion, in our initial analysis of the case, we will take into consideration only those issues raised by the trial court in its published opinion. 37 We turn now to a comparison of the issues raised in the declaratory judgment action with those raised before Judge Austin in the first removal hearing and in the State libel action. 38 B. Comparison of Issues in Removal Hearing, State Libel Action, and Declaratory Judgement Action 39 The trial court in its published opinion made the following findings which we believe to be relevant to the issues on this appeal: 40 (1) Following the dismissal of O'Bryan's complaint in the United States District Court in O'Bryan v. Chandler, D.C., 249 F.Supp. 51, O'Bryan appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 41