Filed: Nov. 28, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2003 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk MICHAEL ANTHONY WHITESELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-4075 (D.C. No. 1:03-CV-2-DB) STATE OF UTAH; BOX ELDER (D. Utah) COUNTY, UTAH, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not material
Summary: F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2003 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT PATRICK FISHER Clerk MICHAEL ANTHONY WHITESELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-4075 (D.C. No. 1:03-CV-2-DB) STATE OF UTAH; BOX ELDER (D. Utah) COUNTY, UTAH, Defendants-Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiall..
More
F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 28 2003
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
MICHAEL ANTHONY WHITESELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 03-4075
(D.C. No. 1:03-CV-2-DB)
STATE OF UTAH; BOX ELDER (D. Utah)
COUNTY, UTAH,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY , HARTZ , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Michael Anthony Whitesell, proceeding pro se, appeals from an
order of the district court dismissing this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 , for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.
Mr. Whitesell commenced this action against Box Elder County, Utah,
and the State of Utah, in which he alleged that the First Judicial District Court of
Box Elder County had violated his constitutional rights to due process and to have
appointed pro bono counsel. He also alleged that court had denied him his
parental rights by denying him custody of his four minor children. Mr. Whitesell
asked the federal district court to overturn the state court’s protective orders and
its order regarding custody and visitation. He sought damages and full custody
of the children.
The district court held that it had no subject matter jurisdiction over the
case because the State of Utah had not agreed to waive its Eleventh Amendment
immunity in actions of this type and was not a person within the meaning of
§ 1983 . The court also held that Mr. Whitesell’s claims were barred by the
Rooker-Feldman 1
doctrine because, other than the United States Supreme Court,
federal courts do not have jurisdiction to act as appellate courts reviewing
decisions of state courts.
1
Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co. ,
263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman ,
460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
-2-
On appeal, Mr. Whitesell does not address the federal court’s conclusion
that it lacked jurisdiction over this action. Instead, he argues that the State of
Utah violated his constitutional right to defend himself in the custody hearing and
violated his due process rights by changing the hearing date to a time when he
was in Tennessee.
“We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), and review findings of jurisdictional facts
for clear error.” Stuart v. Colo. Interstate Gas Co. ,
271 F.3d 1221, 1225
(10th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
Upon review of the parties’ briefs and the record before us, we AFFIRM
the district court’s order for substantially the reasons stated in its March 24, 2003
order, adopting the magistrate judge’s February 14, 2003 report and
recommendation. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-3-