Bret Healy v. Supreme Court of SD

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 24-1996 ___________________________

Bret Healy

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

Healy Ranch Partnership

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff

v.

Supreme Court of South Dakota; Healy Ranch Inc.; Mary Ann Osborne; Barry Healy; Bryce Healy; Albert Steven Fox; Larry Mines; Sheila Mines; Janine M. Kern; Mark E. Salter; Jon C. Sogn; Patricia J. Devaney; Scott P. Myren; Steven R. Jensen

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern ____________

Submitted: March 27, 2025 Filed: April 3, 2025 [Unpublished] ____________

Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM. Bret Healy appeals after the district court1 dismissed his civil action and imposed sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the dismissal was proper because Claim 1 was barred by the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine; Claims 2, 3, and 4 were barred by res judicata; and Claim 5 was barred by judicial immunity. See Dalton v. NPC Int’l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693, 695 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); see also Waller v. Groose, 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (affirmance permitted on any grounds supported by record). We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Healy. See Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d 550, 553 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. ______________________________

1 The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of South Dakota. 2 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

-2-