Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Hull v. City of Santa Fe, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gretchen Lynn Hull against the City of Santa Fe. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hull's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the city for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hull's complaint alleged negligence related to a trip-and-fall accident and violations of her due process rights in the state court negligence case. However, the city was not liable for any actions of the state court, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review alleged errors in the state court decision. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the federal claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Hull's remaining state law

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Hull v. City of Santa Fe, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    75 views3 pages
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gretchen Lynn Hull against the City of Santa Fe. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hull's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the city for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hull's complaint alleged negligence related to a trip-and-fall accident and violations of her due process rights in the state court negligence case. However, the city was not liable for any actions of the state court, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review alleged errors in the state court decision. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the federal claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Hull's remaining state law

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-07-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-2222

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gretchen Lynn Hull against the City of Santa Fe. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hull's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the city for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hull's complaint alleged negligence related to a trip-and-fall accident and violations of her due process rights in the state court negligence case. However, the city was not liable for any actions of the state court, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review alleged errors in the state court decision. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the federal claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Hull's remaining state law

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    75 views3 pages

    Hull v. City of Santa Fe, 10th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit regarding a case brought by Gretchen Lynn Hull against the City of Santa Fe. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Hull's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the city for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Hull's complaint alleged negligence related to a trip-and-fall accident and violations of her due process rights in the state court negligence case. However, the city was not liable for any actions of the state court, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review alleged errors in the state court decision. Therefore, the appeals court affirmed dismissal of the federal claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Hull's remaining state law

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    JUL 29 2004

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    GRETCHEN LYNN HULL,


    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    No. 03-2222
    (D.C. No. CIV-03-531 BB/RHS)
    (D. N.M.)

    v.
    CITY OF SANTA FE,
    Defendant-Appellee.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before SEYMOUR and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges, and


    District Judge.

    KANE , ** Senior

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist 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. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    The Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District Judge, United States District
    Court for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation.

    **

    Plaintiff Gretchen Lynn Hull, appearing pro se, appeals from the dismissal
    of her 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against defendant City of Santa Fe. Ms. Hull
    argues that the district court erred by dismissing her case for lack of subject
    matter jurisdiction, an issue we review de novo.

    U.S. West, Inc. v. Tristani , 182

    F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 1999). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
    1291 and we affirm.
    Liberally construing Hulls pro se complaint, it appears that Hull is
    bringing two claims: one for negligence against the City of Santa Fe related to a
    trip-and-fall accident and a second one for due process violations by the state
    court in her negligence case against the City of Santa Fe arising out of the same
    trip-and-fall accident. With respect to Ms. Hulls first claim, she has not
    demonstrated a basis for federal jurisdiction. The parties are not diverse and
    there is no federal question involved.

    See 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1332. Ms. Hull

    states correctly, however, that we can exercise pendent jurisdiction over her state
    claim if we have jurisdiction over her federal claim.
    We turn then to Ms. Hulls federal claim. Although her complaint does
    allege that her due process rights were violated in the state court proceeding, the
    City of Santa Fe is not liable for the conduct of the state court system; therefore,
    Ms. Hull has not stated a constitutional claim against the defendant she chose to
    sue. Even if Ms. Hull had sued the proper defendant, her claim would require us
    -2-

    to review alleged errors related to her state court judgment. Federal courts, other
    than the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to review state court decisions.
    See Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Nudell
    (10th Cir. 2004) (discussing

    , 363 F.3d 1072, 1074-75

    Rooker-Feldman doctrine which limits federal

    appellate review of state court decisions). Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal


    of Ms. Hulls 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim. Finally, because we are affirming the
    dismissal of Ms. Hulls federal claim, we decline to exercise jurisdiction over her
    remaining state claim.

    See Coen v. Runner , 854 F.2d 374, 379 (10th Cir. 1988).

    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Ms. Hulls Ruling in


    Support of Plaintiffs 2/6/04 Disqualification of District Court Judge Blacks
    Disqualification and Plaintiffs 2/23/04 Damages Request is DENIED.
    Entered for the Court

    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Circuit Judge

    -3-

    You might also like