Wiland v. Stitt

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: February 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-5116
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-5116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT February 3, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court BRI’ANNE WILAND,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 24-5116 (D.C. No. 4:24-CV-00443-GKF-CDL) KEVIN STITT; JULIE DOSS; M. JOHN (N.D. Okla.) KANE, IV; WILMA PALMER; TAMMY BRUCE; ANTHONY MILLER; CAROLINE WALL; KEVIN GRAY; STEVE KUNZWEILER; GENTNER DRUMMOND,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before PHILLIPS, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________

Plaintiff Bri’Anne Wiland asserts the State of Oklahoma illegally terminated

her parental rights. She seeks immediate restoration, a ruling that Oklahoma’s

constitution forbids taking a parent’s children without a jury trial, and declaratory

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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.

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. Appellate Case: 24-5116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2025 Page: 2

judgment on similar parental-rights issues. She filed her complaint in the Northern

District of Oklahoma, which dismissed it under the domestic-relations exception to

federal jurisdiction and abstained from ruling on the Oklahoma-constitutional

question under Younger v. Harris¸ 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

The district court committed no error. Federal courts lack jurisdiction over

domestic-relations matters, such as Plaintiff’s request to restore custody of her

children. Johnson v. Rodrigues (Orozco), 226 F.3d 1103, 1111 (10th Cir. 2000), as

amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc (Oct. 12, 2000) (“We conclude,

therefore, that the domestic relations exception . . . divests the federal courts of

power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.”) (quoting Ankenbrandt

v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)).

And Younger certainly counsels abstaining from ruling on Plaintiff’s other

claims. In some instances, even if a Federal court has jurisdiction to hear a claim, it

may—and even should—abstain from doing so. Federal courts may abstain from

ruling on issues within their jurisdiction if doing so interferes with “(1) state criminal

prosecutions, (2) civil enforcement proceedings [that take on a quasi-criminal shape],

and (3) civil proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of

the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial function.” Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of

Am. v. A-Quality Auto Sales, Inc., 98 F.4th 1307, 1317 (10th Cir. 2024) (quoting

Graff v. Aberdeen Enterprizes, II, Inc., 65 F.4th 500, 522 (10th Cir. 2023)). If ruling

on the issue might interfere with traditionally state-court functions, courts ask

“whether there exists ‘(1) an ongoing state judicial . . . proceeding, (2) the presence

2 Appellate Case: 24-5116 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2025 Page: 3

of an important state interest, and (3) an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims

in the state proceedings.’” Id. (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. N.M. Admin. Off.

of Cts., 53 F.4th 1245, 1256 (10th Cir. 2022)). As the district court found, Plaintiff is

currently a party to an ongoing Oklahoma-state proceeding seeking to restore her

parental rights. [ROA at 19.] Plaintiff neither denies the existence of the proceeding

nor that it is ongoing. And ruling on Plaintiff’s Oklahoma-constitutional declaratory-

judgment questions requires intruding into an important, indeed exclusive, state

competency in family law questions. Chapman v. Oklahoma, 472 F.3d 747, 749–50

(10th Cir. 2006) (citing Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 703)). Plaintiff also has not shown

that she lacks opportunity to bring her claims in Oklahoma-state court, as most of her

appellate brief contains little more than bare citations to law without analysis of how

it applies to her own case. The district court correctly abstained from considering

Plaintiff’s claims.

AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge