Holloway v. Arkansas State Board of Architects

Eighth Circuit

Holloway v. Arkansas State Board of Architects

103 F. App'x 76

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 27, 2004

Docket03-3670

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 F. App'x 76 (Holloway v. Arkansas State Board of Architects) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holloway v. Arkansas State Board of Architects, 103 F. App'x 76 (8th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert D. Holloway appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *77 action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). After de novo review, see Charehenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1995), we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction, because Holloway’s federal complaint raised constitutional challenges already decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court, albeit in a non-section 1983 action. See Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.1997) (litigant cannot circumvent Rooker-Feldman by recasting lawsuit as § 1983 action). Holloway’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were also barred, because any grant of relief would require the district court to make conclusions directly contrary to the decision of the state supreme court. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir.2000) (Rooker-Feldman bars indirect attempts to undermine state-court judgments); Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1990) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the *77 Eastern District of Arkansas.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Robert D. Holloway appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 *77 action as barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). After de novo review, see Charehenko v. City of Stillwater, 47 F.3d 981, 982-83 (8th Cir. 1995), we agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction, because Holloway’s federal complaint raised constitutional challenges already decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court, albeit in a non-section 1983 action. See Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.1997) (litigant cannot circumvent Rooker-Feldman by recasting lawsuit as § 1983 action). Holloway’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were also barred, because any grant of relief would require the district court to make conclusions directly contrary to the decision of the state supreme court. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County, 222 F.3d 488, 492 (8th Cir.2000) (Rooker-Feldman bars indirect attempts to undermine state-court judgments); Keene Corp. v. Cass, 908 F.2d 293, 297 (8th Cir.1990) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the *77 Eastern District of Arkansas.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 F. App'x 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-arkansas-state-board-of-architects-ca8-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack