eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2016-02

Robert Lepelletier, Jr. v. John Tran , 633 F. App'x 126 ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1703
ROBERT LEPELLETIER, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JOHN   M.  TRAN,   Fairfax    County     Circuit      Court   Judge;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.     Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00103-AJT-TCB)
Submitted:   November 30, 2015             Decided:    February 11, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lepelletier, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    Erin Rose McNeill,
Assistant Attorney General, Liza Shawn Simmons, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lepelletier, Jr., appeals the district court’s order
dismissing         his   civil       action    pursuant      to    Fed.      R.    Civ.    P.
12(b)(1), (6).           We have reviewed the record and conclude that
the district court committed no reversible error in dismissing
Lepelletier’s action.
As    the    district      court      properly     concluded,      Lepelletier’s
claims were effectively a collateral attack on a state court
sanctions      ruling,         and    thus     barred      by     the   Rooker-Feldman *
doctrine.          See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,
    544 U.S. 280
    ,      284     (2005)      (describing        doctrine);        Adkins   v.
Rumsfeld,
    464 F.3d 456
    , 464 (4th Cir. 2006) (addressing relevant
considerations); Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp.,
    434 F.3d 712
    ,
718   (4th     Cir.      2006)    (same).          His   claims    seeking        injunctive
relief against a sitting state court judge for actions taken in
his judicial capacity also were barred by the plain language of
42    U.S.C.    § 1983      (2012).          Moreover,     insofar      as    Lepelletier
sought to raise constitutional challenges to ongoing state-court
contempt proceedings related to the sanctions order, we conclude
his claims are the proper subject of abstention under Younger v.
Harris,
    401 U.S. 37 
       (1971).          See   Sprint    Commc’ns,        Inc.   v.
*
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
    460 U.S. 462 
    (1983);
Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co.,
    263 U.S. 413 
    (1923).
2
Jacobs,    134   S.    Ct.    584,       588       (2013)   (addressing          appropriate
grounds for Younger abstention); Juidice v. Vail,
    430 U.S. 327
    ,
335    (1977)       (abstaining          under        Younger       from     adjudicating
challenges to state court contempt proceeding); Moore v. City of
Asheville,
    396 F.3d 385
    , 390 (4th Cir. 2005) (listing factors to
guide abstention).
Lepelletier        does     not     challenge          the    district        court’s
conclusion that he failed to allege a valid basis for mandamus
relief.     See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting appellate review to
issues     raised     in     informal      brief).             Beyond      these     claims,
Lepelletier’s action failed to allege any justiciable Article
III controversy.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.                             We
deny   Lepelletier’s         motions      for       judicial      notice,    for     summary
disposition,        and      for     a         stay     or,       alternatively,         for
certification.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before    this   court     and     argument         would   not     aid    the    decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3