Jones v. Double "D" Properties, Inc.

179 F. App'x 401
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedMay 5, 2006
DocketNo. 05-2242
StatusPublished

This text of 179 F. App'x 401 (Jones v. Double "D" Properties, Inc.) 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
Jones v. Double "D" Properties, Inc., 179 F. App'x 401 (8th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

[UNPUBLISHED]

PER CURIAM.

Buck D. Jones (Buck) appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of an action he and his wife Robbie R. Jones, now deceased, brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Having conducted de novo review of the record, see Gisslen v. City of Crystal, Minn., 345 F.3d 624, 626-27 (8th Cir.2003) (determination as to subject matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo), cert, denied, 541 U.S. 960, 124 S.Ct. 1722, 158 L.Ed.2d 401 (2004), we conclude that the Joneses’ illegal-exaction claim—the only claim Buck addresses in his brief, and thus the only one before us—was barred under the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine, see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before federal proceedings were commenced, and inviting federal district courts to review and reject those judgments). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny both the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith’s motion for sanctions and Buck’s request to disqualify the University’s counsel.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
179 F. App'x 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-double-d-properties-inc-ca8-2006.