Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Alan HEADMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. Royal I. HANSEN, Defendant - Appellee, Joanna Sagers; Matthew B. Durrant; Thomas Rex Lee; Constantinos Himonas; John A. Pierce; Paige Petersen, Consolidated Defendants - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT **
Plaintiff - Appellant Alan Headman filed three § 1983 actions in the United States District Court for the District of Utah: one against Judge Royal I. Hansen, the state court trial judge who presided over his divorce case; a second against Commissioner Joanna Sagers, who made recommendations to the court regarding alimony and other matters; and a third against all five justices of the Utah Supreme Court. The claims in each of the actions stemmed from Plaintiff's divorce proceedings in state court. The district court consolidated the actions, and thereafter, Defendants filed motions to dismiss. The district court granted the motions, concluding four separate grounds supported dismissal: (1) lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (2) Younger abstention barred the relief Plaintiff sought; (3) Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity; and (4) Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. The district court therefore dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.
Plaintiff now appeals the final judgment, asserting the district court erred in dismissing his claims. But Plaintiff fails to present any legally or factually adequate basis for reversal. In a well-reasoned order, the district court competently explained why Plaintiff's allegations—even under a liberal interpretation—fail to support any viable legal claim for relief. For the purpose of resolving this appeal, we have thoroughly reviewed the district court record, Plaintiff's appellate brief, and Defendants’ response brief. We discern no reversible error. Where the district court accurately analyzes an issue, we see no useful purpose in writing at length. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM for substantially the same reasons set forth in the district court's order dismissing Plaintiff's complaint.
Bobby R. Baldock, Circuit Judge
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 20-4035
Decided: August 10, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)