Court Opinion

ID: 2965743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:44:21.454161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:37:22.618007
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
                                 No. 98-1671

                           JOHN CANTY,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

                 JANIS M. LARHETTE, ETC., ET AL.,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

         [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

     John Canty on brief pro se.
     Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General, and Daniel J. Mullen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees Janis Larhette and Howard Zibel.
     James B. Kazan and Normand & Shaughnessy, P.A. on brief for appellees L. David Vincola and N.L. Vincola.

February 25, 1999

                                
            Per Curiam. Having carefully reviewed the record in
    this case, including the briefs of the parties, we affirm the
    dismissal of appellant's claims, although for reasons somewhat
    different from those relied upon below.
              First, we find all of Canty's claims for damage
    relief to be barred by the doctrine of Rooker-Feldman.  Each of
    these claims is predicated on an alleged injury which arises
    out of Canty's eviction.  Since that eviction was upheld by the
    judgment of the state court, Canty's "federal claim [for damage
    relief] succeeds only to the extent that the state court
    wrongly decided the issue before it and hence is "inextricably
    intertwined" with the state court judgment. Pennzoil Co. v.
    Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (Marshall, J., concurring); see,
    e.g., Garry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1367 (7th Cir. 1996)
    ("defendant who has lost in state court and sues in federal
    court . . . asserts injury at the hands of the court and . . .
    suit therefore is an effort to obtain collateral review");
    Homola v. McNamara, 59 F.3d 647, 651 (7th Cir. 1995) (suit
    against deputy for enforcing court order is "just a way to
    contest the order itself" and thus barred by Rooker-Feldman). 
              Arguably, Canty is correct in his contention that his
    claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are general
    constitutional challenges to a state statute and hence not
    barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.  See Schneider v.
    Colegio de Abogodos de Puerto Rico, 917 F.2d 620, 628 (1st Cir.
    1990) (Rooker-Feldman does not bar facial challenges to state
    statutes).  Nevertheless, absent an allegation of injury from
    the eviction--allegations as we have just indicated which are
    barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine--Canty fails to show the
    concrete injury necessary to establish his standing to seek
    injunctive or declaratory relief.  See Berner v. Delahanty, 129
    F.3d 20, 24 (1st Cir. 1997) (party seeking solely injunctive or
    declaratory relief only has standing to pursue his claim if he
    can show, inter alia, invasion of legally protected concrete
    interest), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1305 (1998); see alsoLanders Seed Co., Inc. v. Champaign Nat. Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 732
    (7th Cir.) (absent claim for damages, plaintiff lacks standing
    to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief; however, pursuing
    damages essentially asks court to invalidate state court
    judgment and hence is barred by Rooker-Feldman), cert. denied,
    513 U.S. 811 (1994).
              Finally, even if we assume arguendo that Canty was
    able to reserve his federal claims in state court under the
    doctrine of England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Medical
    Examiners, 375 U.S. 411 (1964), we nonetheless find,
    essentially for the reasons given by the court in Szoke v.
    Carter, 974 F. Supp. 360, 366 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), that the Englandreservation does not overcome a Rooker-Feldman jurisdictional
    bar in this case.
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.