Hull v. City of Santa Fe ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    JUL 29 2004
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    GRETCHEN LYNN HULL,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                   No. 03-2222
    (D.C. No. CIV-03-531 BB/RHS)
    CITY OF SANTA FE,                                      (D. N.M.)
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT            *
    Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges, and             KANE , ** Senior
    District Judge.
    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    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
    **
    The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District
    Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.
    Plaintiff Gretchen Lynn Hull, appearing pro se, appeals from the dismissal
    of her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim against defendant City of Santa Fe. Ms. Hull
    argues that the district court erred by dismissing her case for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction, an issue we review de novo.   U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani , 
    182 F.3d 1202
    , 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and we affirm.
    Liberally construing Hull’s pro se complaint, it appears that Hull is
    bringing two claims: one for negligence against the City of Santa Fe related to a
    trip-and-fall accident and a second one for due process violations by the state
    court in her negligence case against the City of Santa Fe arising out of the same
    trip-and-fall accident. With respect to Ms. Hull’s first claim, she has not
    demonstrated a basis for federal jurisdiction. The parties are not diverse and
    there is no federal question involved.   See 
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
     and 1332. Ms. Hull
    states correctly, however, that we can exercise pendent jurisdiction over her state
    claim if we have jurisdiction over her federal claim.
    We turn then to Ms. Hull’s federal claim. Although her complaint does
    allege that her due process rights were violated in the state court proceeding, the
    City of Santa Fe is not liable for the conduct of the state court system; therefore,
    Ms. Hull has not stated a constitutional claim against the defendant she chose to
    sue. Even if Ms. Hull had sued the proper defendant, her claim would require us
    -2-
    to review alleged errors related to her state court judgment. Federal courts, other
    than the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions.
    See Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Nudell   , 
    363 F.3d 1072
    , 1074-75
    (10th Cir. 2004) (discussing   Rooker-Feldman doctrine which limits federal
    appellate review of state court decisions). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal
    of Ms. Hull’s 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim. Finally, because we are affirming the
    dismissal of Ms. Hull’s federal claim, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over her
    remaining state claim.   See Coen v. Runner , 
    854 F.2d 374
    , 379 (10th Cir. 1988).
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Ms. Hull’s “Ruling in
    Support of Plaintiff’s 2/6/04 Disqualification of District Court Judge Black’s
    Disqualification and Plaintiff’s 2/23/04 Damages’ Request” is DENIED.
    Entered for the Court
    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Circuit Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-2222

Judges: Seymour, Anderson, Kane

Filed Date: 7/29/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/2/2024