United States Tenth Circuit

An order dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint and denying his motion to amend or alter the judgment after he was found guilty of littering his own property in municipal court is affirmed where: 1) the payment of restitution or a fine is not the sort of restraint on liberty contemplated in the custody requirement of the federal habeas statutes; 2) a complaint filed in federal court seeking review and reversal of a state-court judgement is properly dismissed under Rooker-Feldman; 3) the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over any challenges to plaintiff's municipal court conviction under 42 U.S.C. section 1983; and 4) plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the municipal code were intertwined with the state court judgment and were barred by Rooker-Feldman.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/10/2008
• Published 06/10/2008

Judges

• BRISCOE, Circuit Judge., Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Tenth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Submitted on the briefs: , Peter Erlandson, pro se.


• For Appellees:
  
• J. Andrew Nathan and Marni Nathan Kloster of Nathan, Bremer, Dumm & Myers, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee.