Sharon Hall v. Lynne Callahan ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                          RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
    File Name: 13a0181p.06
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    _________________
    X
    Plaintiffs-Appellants, -
    SHARON HALL; JAMES CODY,
    -
    -
    -
    No. 12-3708
    v.
    ,
    >
    -
    Defendants-Appellees. -
    HONORABLE LYNNE S. CALLAHAN, et al.,
    N
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Ohio at Akron.
    No. 5:11-cv-01740—David D. Dowd, Jr., District Judge.
    Decided and Filed: May 31, 2013*
    Before: MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
    _________________
    COUNSEL
    ON BRIEF: John L. Juergensen, JOHN L. JUERGENSEN CO., LPA, North Canton,
    Ohio, for Appellants. Lesley a. Walter, SUMMIT COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S
    OFFICE, Akron, Ohio, for County Court Appellees. Michael J. Schuler, Damian W.
    Sikora, OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Columbus, Ohio, for the
    Ninth District Court of Appeals Appellees.
    _________________
    OPINION
    _________________
    SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Sharon Hall and James
    Cody appeal the district court’s dismissal of their § 1983 action which challenged, on
    several constitutional grounds, a state court judgment declaring them to be vexatious
    litigators under Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.52. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ due
    *
    This decision was originally issued as an “unpublished decision” filed on May 31, 2013. The
    court has now designated the opinion as one recommended for full-text publication.
    1
    No. 12-3708            Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                           Page 2
    process, equal protection, and as-applied constitutional challenges under the Rooker-
    Feldman doctrine and held that the vexatious litigator state statute was facially
    constitutional. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the district court.
    I. Background
    A.       State Trial Court
    Sharon Hall and James Cody (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)1 filed a number of pro
    se complaints against their neighbor, Michael Harig, and several other individuals.
    Harig subsequently brought an action against Plaintiffs in the Summit County Court of
    Common Pleas, seeking to designate Plaintiffs as vexatious litigators under Ohio
    Revised Code § 2323.52 (the “Statute”).
    The case was assigned to visiting Judge Judith Cross (“Judge Cross”). Although
    Judge Cross never issued a pre-trial order, met with the litigants, or set a briefing
    schedule, she designated Plaintiffs as vexatious litigators in a sua sponte summary
    judgment order and dismissed any remaining claims in the other civil cases brought by
    Plaintiffs.
    B.       State Court of Appeals
    Plaintiffs retained counsel and attempted to appeal the decision to the Ninth
    District Court of Appeals. However, Plaintiffs failed to seek leave to appeal, as required
    by the Statute. Under the Statute, no appellate proceedings may be instituted by
    vexatious litigators without leave of the appellate court.                         Ohio Rev. Code
    § 2323.52(D)(3) & (I). As a result, Plaintiffs’ appeal was dismissed. Subsequently,
    Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to continue their appeal. They also requested that the
    Ninth District reconsider their dismissal. The Ninth District denied both motions and
    dismissed their appeal as untimely. Plaintiffs then filed an appeal with the Ohio
    Supreme Court, which declined jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.
    1
    The docket sheet reflects that Plaintiff-Appellant Cody died on July 12, 2012, after this appeal
    was filed. Therefore, this opinion is moot with respect to Cody.
    No. 12-3708         Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                  Page 3
    C.      Federal District Court
    Plaintiffs proceeded to file a § 1983 claim in the United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Ohio (the “District Court”). The complaint originally named as
    defendants Judge Cross, the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and its judges, the
    Ninth District Court of Appeals and its judges, and the State of Ohio. The State of Ohio
    was later voluntarily dismissed. Plaintiffs advanced three claims: (1) that Judge Cross’s
    sua sponte dismissal violated their due process and equal protection rights; (2) that the
    Statute was unconstitutional as-applied; and (3) that the Statute was facially
    unconstitutional.
    Defendants moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
    Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). On November 17, 2011, the District Court held
    a hearing on the dispositive motions. Plaintiffs were permitted to file a supplemental
    brief, and Defendants were permitted to respond.
    After the supplemental briefing was completed on December 9, 2011, the District
    Court issued a decision on May 10, 2012, granting Defendants’ motion. The District
    Court found that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred it from considering Plaintiffs’
    challenge to Judge Cross’s judgment, as well as Plaintiffs’ as-applied constitutional
    challenge, because “it is clear to the court that the plaintiffs want this court to review and
    reject Judge Cross’s decision.” The District Court also ruled that the Statute was
    constitutional, agreeing with the reasoning set forth in Grundstein v. Ohio, a federal
    district court case finding the Statute constitutional. No. 1:06 CV 2381, 
    2006 WL 3499990
    (N.D. Ohio Dec. 5, 2006). Plaintiffs perfected an appeal to this court in a
    timely manner on June 8, 2012.
    II. Jurisdiction
    This court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the District Court under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291, because this is an appeal from a final judgment as to all parties and
    all claims.
    No. 12-3708         Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                 Page 4
    III. Standard of Review
    This court reviews both motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and
    motions for judgment on the pleadings under a de novo standard. Ziegler v. IBP Hog
    Market, Inc., 
    249 F.3d 509
    , 511-12 (6th Cir. 2001). In reviewing either motion, this
    court must “construe that complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept
    all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true, and determine whether the plaintiff
    undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to
    relief.” 
    Ziegler, 249 F.3d at 511-12
    . The District Court’s application of the Rooker-
    Feldman doctrine is reviewed de novo. Evans v. Cordray, 424 F. App’x 537, 538 (6th
    Cir. 2011).
    IV. Analysis
    Plaintiffs assert that the District Court erred in dismissing their claims that:
    (1) Judge Cross’s sua sponte summary judgment ruling violated Plaintiffs’ due process
    and equal protection rights; (2) the Statute is unconstitutional as applied to Plaintiffs’
    case; and (3) the Statute is unconstitutional on its face.
    A.      Due Process and Equal Protection Challenges
    Plaintiffs allege that the District Court erred by refusing to entertain their claim
    that during the state court proceedings, Judge Cross violated their due process and equal
    protection rights by sua sponte granting summary judgment against them without
    meeting with the litigants or setting a briefing schedule. In the District Court, Plaintiffs
    sought declaratory relief to void Judge Cross’s judgment and also injunctive relief to
    prevent Defendants from enforcing Judge Cross’s judgment. The District Court ruled
    that the claim was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
    Federal district courts do not stand as appellate courts for decisions of state
    courts. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 
    263 U.S. 413
    (1923); Dist. of Columbia Court
    of Appeals v. Feldman, 
    460 U.S. 462
    (1983). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “prevents
    a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over a claim alleging error in a state court
    decision.” Luber v. Sprague, 90 F. App’x 908, 910 (6th Cir. 2004). Federal courts’
    No. 12-3708        Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                 Page 5
    “authority to review a state court’s judgment” is vested “solely in [the Supreme] Court.”
    Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 
    544 U.S. 280
    , 292 (2005). On the other
    hand, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar “a district court from exercising
    subject-matter jurisdiction simply because a party attempts to litigate in federal court a
    matter previously litigated in state court.” Exxon 
    Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293
    ; see also Evans,
    424 F. App’x at 537.
    Plaintiffs set forth several arguments as to why their claims should not have been
    barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. First, Plaintiffs argue that they are “not seeking
    the vacation of the state court judgment,” but that they are “seeking a declaration that
    [their] rights were violated and an injunction as to the enforcement of the judgment.”
    But Plaintiffs’ complaint twice requested that the District Court declare Judge Cross’s
    decision void because she allegedly violated their due process and equal protection rights
    by sua sponte ruling against them in summary judgment without meeting with the
    litigants or setting a briefing schedule. As the District Court noted, it would have been
    impossible to void the state court judgment without “disturbing” it. Furthermore, if this
    court construes Rooker-Feldman to allow attacks on a state court’s procedural error, then
    federal courts could extensively review state court trial proceedings, a task belonging to
    state appellate courts. Therefore, we reject Plaintiffs’ argument that they were not
    directly attacking the state court judgment.
    Next, Plaintiffs cite McCormick v. Braverman for the contention that if “there is
    some other source of injury, such as a third party’s actions, then the plaintiff asserts an
    independent claim” that is not barred by Rooker-Feldman. McCormick v. Braverman,
    
    451 F.3d 382
    , 393 (6th Cir. 2006). In McCormick, the plaintiff lost the state proceeding
    because a third party perpetuated fraud and misrepresentation, which caused an adverse
    judgment against the plaintiff. 
    Id. at 392-93.
    Here, Plaintiffs claim that Judge Cross was
    a third party who injured them with her actions during the state court proceeding.
    However, Judge Cross was not a third party, but the presiding judge. This directly
    implicates Rooker-Feldman concerns. Indeed, the McCormick court explicitly noted that
    errors made by state court judges are barred from consideration. 
    Id. at 394.
    No. 12-3708         Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                  Page 6
    Moreover, even if Judge Cross had conducted her proceedings erroneously,
    Plaintiffs could have directly appealed to the state appellate court. However, the appeal
    was not heard because Plaintiffs made an error in filing for the appeal. Furthermore,
    Plaintiffs failed to appeal to the United States Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
    The District Court was correct to rule that Plaintiffs’ challenge to the state court
    proceeding was barred by Rooker-Feldman.
    B.      As-Applied Constitutional Challenge
    Plaintiffs contend that the District Court erred in ruling that the Rooker-Feldman
    doctrine barred their as-applied constitutional challenge. In the District Court, Plaintiffs
    alleged that the Statute was unconstitutional “as applied and on its face” because “[a]t
    all times following their designation as vexatious litigators, . . . [they] were represented
    by counsel, including the time at which they filed their notice of appeal.” They argued
    that the Statute was overbroad because it fails to distinguish between pro se litigants and
    litigants represented by counsel, the latter of whom are subject to Ohio Civil Rule 11,
    which prohibits counsel from filing vexatious lawsuits, and sought a declaration that the
    Statute is unconstitutional as applied and on its face.
    To the extent Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Statute is unconstitutional as
    applied in the prior state court proceeding and relieving them from that judgment, the
    District Court correctly ruled that Rooker-Feldman bars their as-applied challenge to the
    Statute. See, e.g., Carter v. Burns, 
    524 F.3d 796
    , 798 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding that the
    Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred a prisoner’s as-applied constitutional challenge to a
    Tennessee collateral review statute because the prisoner’s alleged injury was “an injury
    from the prior state-court determinations”); Howard v. Whitbeck, 
    382 F.3d 633
    , 641 (6th
    Cir. 2004) (holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred a prisoner’s as-applied
    challenge to a Michigan statute requiring filing fee payments because it would
    undermine an existing state court judgment).
    To the extent Plaintiffs’ as-applied claim seeks a declaration that the Statute is
    unconstitutional when litigants are represented by counsel in future cases, the claim is
    not ripe because Plaintiffs have not alleged that they have filed or presently intend to file
    No. 12-3708            Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                             Page 7
    any new lawsuits. See Lawrence v. Welch, 
    531 F.3d 364
    , 373-74 (6th Cir. 2008) (Sutton,
    J., concurring) (holding that, to the extent the attorney plaintiff asked the court to enjoin
    the rejection of future bar applications, his claim was not ripe because the court could
    not know if the plaintiff would file a subsequent bar application, or whether a subsequent
    application would be rejected by the Michigan Board of Law Examiners).2 Cf. Berry v.
    Schmitt, 
    688 F.3d 290
    , 298 (6th Cir. 2012) (holding that, to the extent that the attorney
    plaintiff challenged a warning letter he received from the state bar for criticizing a
    legislative ethics commission, his claim was ripe because he had “shown an imminent
    threat of prosecution” by alleging “an intention to engage in speech prohibited by [the
    warning letter]”); Fieger v. Ferry, 
    471 F.3d 637
    , 643 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that, to the
    extent that the plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the continued enforcement of the
    Michigan recusal rule allowing for the defendant judges to hear his cases on the
    Michigan Supreme Court, his claim was ripe because the court could reasonably
    conclude that there was “a significant, rather than remote, possibility” that the plaintiff
    would reappear in front of the Michigan Supreme Court); Hood v. Keller, 
    341 F.3d 593
    ,
    597-98 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that, to the extent the plaintiff asked the court to enjoin
    the state from enforcing a statute requiring that he obtain a permit to speak on public
    grounds, his claim was ripe because he alleged a “continued threat of enforcement” of
    the statute, which would “chill and deter” his present and future speech). Therefore, we
    do not reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ as-applied constitutional challenge.3
    2
    Judge Sutton’s concurrence was joined by Judge Rogers, giving that opinion controlling weight
    with regard to ripeness. See Berry v. Schmitt, 
    688 F.3d 290
    , 301 n. 3 (6th Cir. 2012).
    3
    Although we do not reach the Rooker-Feldman issue because the claim is not ripe, we note that
    the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar as-applied constitutional challenges seeking prospective relief
    as long as “the source of [the plaintiff]'s alleged injury is not the past state court judgments” but “the
    purported unconstitutionality of [the statute] as applied in future cases.” 
    Fieger, 471 F.3d at 646
    . See also
    
    Berry, 688 F.3d at 300
    (holding that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by Rooker-Feldman because he
    “[did] not request relief” from the state decision itself but “[sought] relief that would allow him to engage
    in future protected speech”); 
    Hood, 341 F.3d at 598
    (holding that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by
    Rooker-Feldman because the plaintiff had “not challenged his state court criminal trespass conviction,”
    but sought prospective injunctive and declaratory relief). Cf . 
    Welch, 531 F.3d at 370-71
    (holding that the
    plaintiff’s action was barred by Rooker-Feldman because “while the redress [the plainff] seeks . . . is
    forward-looking, the claim is nonetheless premised on the same past injury”) (non-majority opinion); Loriz
    v. Connaughton, 233 F. App’x 469, 475 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that the plaintiff’s action was barred by
    Rooker-Feldman because “[i]n order for the district court to grant the requested declaratory or injunctive
    relief,” the district court “would be forced to review the decisions” of state courts). In fact, on one
    occasion, this court held that an as-applied constitutional challenge to the very same statute at issue was
    not barred by Rooker-Feldman. Evans, 424 F. App’x at 540-41. The plaintiff in Evans, who had been
    No. 12-3708             Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                              Page 8
    This leaves Plaintiffs’ facial challenge.
    C.       Facial Constitutional Challenge
    Plaintiffs appeal the District Court’s dismissal of their general challenge to the
    constitutionality of the Statute. In their complaint, Plaintiffs sought a declaration that
    the Statute is facially unconstitutional for violating the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth
    Amendments. The District Court held that Rooker-Feldman did not bar a “general
    challenge to the constitutionality of the state law applied in the state action.” Tropf v.
    Fidelity Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 
    289 F.3d 929
    , 937 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting Catz v.
    Chalker, 
    142 F.3d 279
    , 293 (6th Cir. 1998)). However, the District Court nonetheless
    dismissed the claim because it found that the Statute was constitutional as a matter of
    law, adopting the reasoning of Grundstein v. Ohio. 
    2006 WL 3499990
    at *3-7. The
    Grundstein plaintiff argued that the Statute was unconstitutional on its face because it
    violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 
    Id. at *3.
    Applying a rational basis test,
    the Grundstein court held that the Statute was constitutional because it did “not
    arbitrarily and capriciously deprive citizens of a constitutionally protected liberty or
    property interest.” 
    Id. at *6.
    Plaintiffs now challenge the District Court’s reliance on
    Grundstein.
    Plaintiffs argue that Grundstein v. Ohio applied the incorrect standard of review.
    Plaintiffs claim that strict scrutiny should have been applied because access to the
    courthouse is a fundamental right. Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 
    119 F.3d 1259
    , 1261
    (6th Cir. 1997). However, Plaintiffs fail to realize that although access to courts is a
    fundamental right, the ability to file frivolous lawsuits is not. Bill Johnson’s Rests. v.
    NLRB, 
    461 U.S. 731
    , 743 (1983) (“Just as false statements are not immunized by the
    designated a vexatious litigator by a past state court judgment, was in the middle of an ongoing divorce
    proceeding. 
    Id. at 537-38.
    After two of his motions in the divorce proceeding were denied because he
    had failed to file leave as required by the vexatious litigator statute, he challenged the constitutionality of
    the vexatious litigator statute as applied to divorce proceedings in the future. 
    Id. We held
    that because
    the source of the plaintiff’s injury was “Ohio’s allegedly unconstitutional present and future enforcement
    [of the vexatious litigator statute] in divorce proceedings,” and not the prior state court decision
    designating the plaintiff as a vexatious litigator, his claim was not barred by Rooker-Feldman. 
    Id. at 540-
    41. However, the present case is arguably different from Evans because the Evans plaintiff’s alleged injury
    was the alleged unconstitutionality of the statute “as applied in divorce proceedings,” which was “not an
    issue in the vexatious-litigator case and therefore presented no basis for an appeal.” 
    Id. at 541.
    In contrast,
    Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were all issues from Judge Cross’s case, which could have been appealed.
    No. 12-3708           Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                                   Page 9
    First Amendment right to freedom of speech, baseless litigation is not immunized by the
    First Amendment right to petition.”) (citations omitted). As the Grundstein court held,
    the Statute specifically targets baseless litigation. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2323.52
    (2002).
    Plaintiffs also argue that the Statute is overbroad and that there are less restrictive
    means to prevent vexatious litigation, namely requiring that all vexatious litigators be
    represented by counsel, who, in turn, are governed by Ohio Civil Rule 11. However, as
    the Grundstein court reasoned, the Statute is not overbroad because it “is not aimed at
    constitutionally protected speech” and provides a procedure for meritorious claims to be
    heard, even when they are filed by vexatious litigators. Grundstein, 
    2006 WL 3499990
    at *5.
    Next, Plaintiffs claim that the Statute violates the First Amendment right to free
    speech. However, as the Grundstein court reasoned, vexatious conduct is not protected
    by the First Amendment. 
    Id. at *3-4.
    Furthermore, constitutionally protected speech is
    not banned by the Statute because it does not prevent vexatious litigators from filing
    future lawsuits as long as those lawsuits have merit.
    In addition, Plaintiffs contend that the Statute violates the Due Process Clause.
    However, as the Grundstein court reasoned, the Statute does not arbitrarily and
    capriciously deprive citizens of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest.
    
    Id. at *6.
    As the Grundstein court held, and as we note above, the Statute is rationally
    related to legitimate ends, so it is not arbitrary. See Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing,
    
    474 U.S. 214
    , 227 (1985). The Statute also restrains narrowly only the conduct it seeks
    to prohibit, by providing a mechanism by which even vexatious litigants can file
    meritorious actions.
    Finally, Plaintiffs claim that the Statute violates the Equal Protection Clause.
    This argument clearly has no merit. In making an equal protection challenge, the
    plaintiff must demonstrate that a discrimination of some substance has occurred which
    has not occurred against other individuals who were similarly situated. City of Cleburne,
    No. 12-3708        Hall, et al. v. Callahan, et al.                              Page 10
    Texas v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 
    473 U.S. 432
    , 439 (1985). Plaintiffs have not identified
    two groups, nor how the Statute treats them differently.
    In sum, the District Court’s reliance on Grundstein in rejecting Plaintiffs’ facial
    constitutional challenge was not in error.
    V. Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court judgment.