Court Opinion

ID: 9407320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 16:00:55.566941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.908276
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                           For the Eighth Circuit
                       ___________________________

                               No. 22-3299
                       ___________________________

                            Randall Thomas McArty

                      lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

                                         v.

Daniel Odell Turner, Prosecuting Attorney, Clark County, Arkansas; Tim Griffin,
                          Arkansas Attorney General

                     lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
                                      ____________

                    Appeal from United States District Court
               for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs
                                ____________

                            Submitted: June 30, 2023
                              Filed: July 6, 2023
                                [Unpublished]
                                ____________

Before KELLY, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.
       Arkansas inmate Randall Thomas McArty appeals after the district court1
granted defendants’ motion to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de
novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal, we find no basis for
reversal. See Universal Coops., Inc. v. AAC Flying Serv., Inc., 710 F.3d 790, 794
(8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). We agree with the district court that Arkansas’s
postconviction relief procedure as interpreted and applied to McArty did not deny
him due process. See Dist. Attorney’s Off. for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S.
52, 65, 69 (2009) (federal courts may upset state postconviction relief procedures
“only if they are fundamentally inadequate to vindicate the substantive rights
provided”). Defendants’ argument that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over this appeal based on the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court’s decision in Reed v. Goertz, 143 S. Ct. 955, 960 (2023).

      The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
                     ______________________________

      1
      The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the
Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of
Arkansas.
      2
      See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

                                         -2-