Denston v. Chapman , 200 F. App'x 151 ( 2006 )

Opinions of the United
2006 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-10-2006
Denston v. Chapman
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1579
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006
Recommended Citation
"Denston v. Chapman" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 340.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/340
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
CPS-339 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-1579
________________
GREGORY A. DENSTON,
Appellant
v.
WILLIAM L. CHAPMAN; PATRICIA TATE STEWART;
JULIE LORRAINE FAULCONER; LORREN RILEY FAULCONER;
JOS. SCOTT SHANNON; QUINNIN WATSON;
DOES 1-3; VINCENT POPPITI
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the District of Delaware
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-00492)
District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
September 21, 2006
Before: BARRY, SMITH AND NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: October 10, 2006)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
Gregory Denston appeals the District Court’s order dismissing his complaint as
frivolous. The procedural history of this case and the details of Denston’s claims are set
forth in the District Court’s thorough memorandum and need not be discussed at length.
Denston is a Delaware inmate serving a thirty-year sentence for attempted murder for
beating his wife in the head with a baseball bat in 1997 and a ten-year sentence for
subsequently soliciting someone to murder her. See State v. Denston, 2003 WL
22293651, *1-2 (Del. Super. 2003). After the 1997 assault, Denston’s son was placed in
the custody of the Faulconers. In May 2003, Denston’s parental rights were terminated
by the New Castle County Family Court.
In July 2005, Denston filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
state court judges, the special master, the Faulconers, their attorney, a detective, and three
police officers. He alleged that his parental rights and rights to due process were violated
by the state court proceedings which terminated his parental rights. The District Court
dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Denston filed a
timely notice of appeal and has also filed a motion for the appointment of counsel.
Because Denston is proceeding in forma pauperis on this appeal, we must analyze
his appeal for possible dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915
(e)(2)(B), we must dismiss an appeal if the action (i) is frivolous or malicious, (ii) fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (iii) seeks monetary damages from a
defendant with immunity. An action or appeal can be frivolous for either legal or factual
2
reasons. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). When reviewing a complaint
for failure to state a claim, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true.
Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984).
The District Court was correct that the judges and the special master were entitled
to immunity, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991); Hughes v. Long, 242 F.3d 121, 127
(3d Cir. 2001), that the Faulconers and their attorney were not state actors, and that
Denston lacked standing to bring claims against Detective Watson and the three police
officers.1
For essentially the reasons set forth by the District Court, we will dismiss the
appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Denston’s motion for the appointment of
counsel is denied.
1
Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives a federal district court of
jurisdiction to review, directly or indirectly, a state court adjudication. See D.C. Court of
Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,
416 (1923). The Supreme Court has explained that this doctrine applies to “cases brought
by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered
before the District Court proceedings commenced and inviting District Court review and
rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 284 (2005). Thus, to the extent that the relief Denston requests would require
rejection of the state courts’ judgments, the District Court would lack jurisdiction over
those claims.
3