Court Opinion

ID: 9366025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 18:01:01.714484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.944287
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1110     Document: 010110803255         Date Filed: 01/25/2023      Page: 1
                                                                  FILED
                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         January 25, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                          Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                              Clerk of Court
  RICHARD ROY BLAKE,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                            No. 22-1110
                                                   (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-00138-RMR-NYW)
  LILIANE HONG; D. BURTON; THE                                   (D. Colo.)
  CITY OF NORTHGLENN COLORADO,
  a municipality,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

        Richard Roy Blake appeals the dismissal of his claims brought under

 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and arising from a municipal court misdemeanor conviction in

 Northglenn, Colorado. The district court dismissed two of his claims for lack of

        *
          After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this
 appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered
 submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
 except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may
 be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and
 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Appellate Case: 22-1110    Document: 010110803255        Date Filed: 01/25/2023    Page: 2

 subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine1 and dismissed his

 remaining three claims for failure to state a claim. We hold that the Rooker-Feldman

 doctrine does not apply, but we affirm the dismissal of all the claims because

 Mr. Blake failed to plausibly allege any claim on which relief can be granted.

                                  I. BACKGROUND

       Mr. Blake was protesting on a sidewalk outside a mosque in Northglenn,

 Colorado. He held a sign that said “Equal Rights for Christians in Islamic Nations”

 on one side and “Islam Kills” on the other side. Northglenn Police Officers Liliane

 Hong and Darren Burton cited him for violating Northglenn Municipal Code § 9-11-

 16.5, which prohibits the obstruction of streets and sidewalks. Mr. Blake moved to

 dismiss in Northglenn Municipal Court, arguing that (1) the ordinance is

 unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and (2) the citation violated his First

 Amendment rights and was issued in retaliation for the exercise of his free speech

 rights. The municipal court denied the motion. On October 30, 2020, a three-person

 jury convicted Mr. Blake.

       Mr. Blake appealed to the Adams County District Court, which affirmed his

 conviction on June 23, 2021. The court rejected Mr. Blake’s vagueness and

 overbreadth arguments but declined to address his other arguments. On November 8,

       1
        See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v.
 Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983).

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1110     Document: 010110803255        Date Filed: 01/25/2023     Page: 3

 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari. On March 28,

 2022, the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari.

       On January 15, 2021, when his appeal to the Adams County District Court was

 pending, Mr. Blake filed the underlying federal lawsuit against Officers Hong and

 Burton and the City of Northglenn. He claimed (1) § 9-11-16.5 is void for vagueness

 in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) it is overbroad in violation of the First

 Amendment, (3) the police officers violated his First Amendment free speech rights

 in issuing the citation, and (4) they issued the citation in retaliation for Mr. Blake’s

 speech.

       The district court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. It held the

 Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Mr. Blake’s vagueness and overbreadth claims

 because the state court had rejected them. But because the state court declined to

 address Mr. Blake’s remaining claims, the district court said Rooker-Feldman did not

 apply to them. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim under Federal

 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mr. Blake then brought this pro se appeal.2

                                    II. DISCUSSION

                             A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

       We first consider whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.

 See Adams v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 225 F.3d 1179, 1182 (10th Cir. 2000)

       2
         We liberally construe Mr. Blake’s pro se filings, but we do not assume the role of
 his advocate. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

                                             3
Appellate Case: 22-1110     Document: 010110803255         Date Filed: 01/25/2023     Page: 4

 (“In light of the limited subject matter jurisdiction granted to the federal courts by

 Congress, we have a duty to satisfy ourselves that jurisdiction is appropriate.”).

        Defendants argue the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes jurisdiction over all

 of Mr. Blake’s claims. That doctrine “prevents a party losing in state court . . . from

 seeking what in substance would be appellate review of a state judgment in a United

 States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself

 violates the loser’s federal rights.” Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1256 (10th Cir.

 2006) (quotations and brackets omitted).

        The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, however, “applies only to suits filed after state

 proceedings are final.” Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1032 (10th Cir. 2006). In

 Guttman, the plaintiff filed his federal lawsuit while his petition for certiorari to the

 New Mexico Supreme Court was still pending. Id. We deemed the plaintiff’s state

 lawsuit not final and held that Rooker-Feldman thus did not bar his federal lawsuit.

 Id. Here, Mr. Blake filed his federal lawsuit in January 2021, five months before the

 Adams County District Court ruled on his appeal and nearly 11 months before the

 Colorado Supreme Court denied his petition for certiorari. Under Guttman, Rooker-

 Feldman thus did not bar the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Mr. Blake’s

 federal lawsuit. See also D.A. Osguthorpe Fam. P’ship v. ASC Utah, Inc., 705 F.3d

 1223, 1232 (10th Cir. 2013).

                                B. Failure to State a Claim

        Although the district court should not have declined to address the merits of

 Mr. Blake’s overbreadth and vagueness claims based on the Rooker-Feldman

                                              4
Appellate Case: 22-1110     Document: 010110803255         Date Filed: 01/25/2023     Page: 5

 doctrine, “we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, even if it requires

 ruling on arguments not reached by the district court or even presented to us on

 appeal.” Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011). We

 typically will do so when “the parties have fully briefed and argued the alternate

 ground.” See United States v. Chavez, 976 F.3d 1178, 1203 n.17 (10th Cir. 2020)

 (quotations omitted). In their motion to dismiss, Defendants fully briefed their

 arguments that the overbreadth and vagueness claims should be dismissed on their

 merits. Mr. Blake had a fair opportunity to respond. We therefore will address those

 arguments and will review the district court’s merits dismissal of the other claims.3

        We review a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Smith v. United States,

 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). We accept as true all well-pleaded factual

 allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. In making

 that assessment, we must determine whether Mr. Blake’s complaint “contain[s]

 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on

 its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted).

    Void for Vagueness

        Mr. Blake failed to allege a void-for-vagueness claim. An ordinance is void

 for vagueness if it (1) “fails to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable

        3
          Although we affirm based on failure to state any claim, Mr. Blake’s action also
 may run afoul of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because his § 1983 case
 implicates the validity of his criminal conviction. Because the Defendants moved to
 dismiss based on failure to state a claim and did not present a Heck argument, we affirm
 on the former ground.
                                              5
Appellate Case: 22-1110    Document: 010110803255        Date Filed: 01/25/2023     Page: 6

 opportunity to understand what conduct it prohibits,” or (2) “authorizes or even

 encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.” Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S.

 703, 732 (2000).

       The ordinance here provides:

              It is unlawful for any person to willfully, maliciously or
              recklessly place in any doorway or driveway not owned by
              him or under his lawful control or on any sidewalk, public
              highway, street or alley in the City any object which
              causes or tends to cause the obstruction thereof or of any
              part thereof.

 Northglenn Mun. Code § 9-11-16.5.

       Mr. Blake has not alleged or argued that the ordinance authorizes or

 encourages arbitrary enforcement, and we find that people of ordinary intelligence

 would understand what it means.

    Overbreadth

       To survive a motion to dismiss on his overbreadth claim, Mr. Blake must

 plausibly allege substantial overbreadth. Faustin v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 423 F.3d

 1192, 1199 (10th Cir. 2005). This requires him to allege that Northglenn’s ordinance

 “actually sweeps within its prohibitions such a substantial amount of protected free

 speech in relation to its plainly legitimate sweep that the [ordinance] itself must be

 invalid on its face.” Id. at 1200 (quotations omitted). Overbreadth is “strong

 medicine,” and courts “employ[] it with hesitation, and then, only as a last resort.”

 Id. at 1199 (quotations omitted).

                                             6
Appellate Case: 22-1110    Document: 010110803255         Date Filed: 01/25/2023     Page: 7

       The ordinance does not regulate speech. Rather, it prohibits physical

 obstruction of public rights-of-way, including sidewalks, a “plainly legitimate

 sweep.” Id. Mr. Blake has not alleged the ordinance prohibits a substantial amount

 of protected free speech. “[T]he mere fact that one can conceive of some

 impermissible applications of a statute is not sufficient to render it susceptible to an

 overbreadth challenge.” Members of the City Council of L.A. v. Taxpayers for

 Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 800 (1984). He has failed to allege an overbreadth claim.

    First Amendment

       Mr. Blake failed to allege a plausible claim that the citation violated his First

 Amendments rights. He contends that he was convicted for obstructing the sidewalk

 with his body, not for carrying a sign. The ordinance prohibits the obstruction of the

 sidewalk regardless of the type of object used. See McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S

 464, 481 (2014) (“Obstructed access and congested sidewalks are problems no matter

 what caused them.”). Mr. Blake’s operative complaint appended a police report

 observing that he caused other pedestrians to step into the road to get around him.4

 As the district court held, under the ordinance individuals “retain[] the ability to

 exercise their First Amendment rights, they simply must exercise those rights without

       4
         See Commonwealth Prop. Advocs., LLC v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
 680 F.3d 1194, 1201 (10th Cir. 2011) (“In evaluating a motion to dismiss, we may
 consider not only the complaint, but also the attached exhibits and documents
 incorporated into the complaint by reference.”).

                                             7
Appellate Case: 22-1110     Document: 010110803255        Date Filed: 01/25/2023     Page: 8

 blocking sidewalks, doorways, or driveways.” R. at 220. We affirm the district

 court’s dismissal of this claim.

    First Amendment Retaliation

       To state a claim of retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights,

 Mr. Blake must plausibly allege the citation was issued without probable cause. See

 Fenn v. City of Truth or Consequences, 983 F.3d 1143, 1149 (10th Cir. 2020);

 Williams v. City of Carl Junction, 480 F.3d 871, 876-77 (8th Cir. 2007) (in First

 Amendment retaliation case, applying probable cause requirement to the issuance of

 citations). As the district court found, Mr. Blake failed to do so. Because a jury

 convicted Mr. Blake, he cannot plausibly allege there was no probable cause to issue

 the citation. See Cameron v. Fogarty, 806 F.2d 380, 388-89 (2d Cir. 1986)

 (“[W]here law enforcement officers have made an arrest, the resulting conviction is a

 defense to a § 1983 action asserting that the arrest was made without probable

 cause.”).

    Municipal Liability

       There can be no municipal liability in the absence of an underlying

 constitutional violation. See Graves v. Thomas, 450 F.3d 1215, 1218 (10th Cir.

 2006). Because Mr. Blake did not adequately plead an underlying constitutional

 violation, the municipal liability claim necessarily fails.

                                             8
Appellate Case: 22-1110   Document: 010110803255       Date Filed: 01/25/2023   Page: 9

                                 III. CONCLUSION

       We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Blake’s claims.

                                           Entered for the Court

                                           Scott M. Matheson, Jr.
                                           Circuit Judge

                                           9