No. 18-1290

Reed Kirk McDonald v. Arapahoe County, Colorado

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: civil-procedure civil-rights collateral-attack colorado-law colorado-rule-120 due-process federal-courts federal-jurisdiction non-judicial-proceeding non-judicial-proceedings preclusion res-judicata rooker-feldman-doctrine rule-120 standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-05-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

The specific question presented is: Whether a party who was not, and has never been named as an underlying party to any court proceedings for/against petitioner can invoke Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss litigation?

The wide-ranging question: Neither the granting nor the denial of a motion under Colorado's Rule 120 non-judicial proceeding shall constitute an appealable order or judgment as a matter of Colorado law. Thus, do Rule 120 non-judicial proceedings exhibit preclusion in federal courts?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a party who was not, and has never been named as an underlying party to any court proceedings for/against petitioner can invoke Rooker-Feldman doctrine to dismiss litigation

Docket Entries

2019-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-04-25
Waiver of right of respondent Arapahoe County to respond filed.
2019-04-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 13, 2019)

Attorneys

Arapahoe County
Monica N. KovaciArapahoe County Attorney's Office, Respondent
Reed McDonald
Reed K. McDonald — Petitioner