Majersky v. State of Colorado

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 14, 2025
• Docket: 25-1099
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-1099 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 14, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court GREGORY MAJERSKY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-1099 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-00510-LTB-RTG) STATE OF COLORADO; KAREN (D. Colo.) HUBLER, Magistrate, Denver District Court of Colorado,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________

Before HARTZ, EID, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Plaintiff Gregory Majersky brought this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

claiming that Colorado Magistrate Karen Hubler violated his Fourteenth Amendment

rights during child-support proceedings. In addition to naming Magistrate Hubler as a

defendant, the complaint also seeks damages from the State of Colorado on a theory

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-1099 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2025 Page: 2

of vicarious liability.1 The United States District Court for the District of Colorado

dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). Majersky timely appealed. Exercising

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

On June 27 and December 17, 2024, Magistrate Karen Hubler conducted

child-support proceedings in Denver, Colorado. During these proceedings Magistrate

Hubler allegedly (1) “allowed the Petitioner’s claim to utilize imputed income in

calculating the change in support for Gregory Majersky,” Aplt. App. at 5; (2)

“allow[ed] the Petitioner to enter exhibits that did not conform to Colorado rules of

evidence,” id. at 6; and (3) “allowed the Petitioner to enter an expert witness,

employed by the Petitioner, to testify as part of deciding change in child support

calculations based on imputed income,” id.

Majersky alleges that these “biased” actions “disproportionately affected” him,

id., and that they violated “both state statute and stare decisis without legal

justification,” id. at 5. Accordingly, he claims Magistrate Hubler “infringe[d] upon

[his] due process and equal protection rights as guaranteed under the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Id. He claims that these violations

“result[ed] in the 42 U.S.C. sec 1983 injuries to” him, Aplt. Br. at 2, and he requests

monetary damages from Magistrate Hubler and the State of Colorado.

1 We liberally construe Majersky’s pro se materials but do not act as his advocate. See Merryfield v. Jordan, 584 F.3d 923, 924 n.1 (10th Cir. 2009).

2 Appellate Case: 25-1099 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2025 Page: 3

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of claims under the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine. See Campbell v. City of Spencer, 682 F.3d 1278, 1281 (10th Cir.

2012).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is a jurisdictional prohibition on lower federal

courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over state-court judgments.” Id. at 1281. It

precludes “state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court

judgments” from “inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

Majersky claims that Magistrate Hubler violated his Fourteenth Amendment

rights by misapplying state law during his child-support proceedings, and he seeks

damages caused by the resulting judgment. “This is precisely the relief the Rooker-

Feldman doctrine says lower federal courts are powerless to provide.” Bruce v. City

& Cnty. of Denver, 57 F.4th 738, 750 (10th Cir. 2023). Majersky cannot escape this

conclusion by “recast[ing]” his state-court loss as a deprivation of his constitutional

rights. Id. at 749.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. We GRANT

Majersky’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and DENY as moot his

motion to proceed on the record and his opening brief.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge