explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive a district court of subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiff, who had been convicted of criminal trespass under a state statute for preaching on the state’s capitol grounds without a permit, only sought declaratory relief prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the allegedly unconstitutional permit requirement so that he could preach on the state capitol grounds in the future unimpeded by the permit requirement, because he did not challenge or seek to overturn his criminal trespass conviction
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not deprive a district court of subject matter jurisdiction where the plaintiff, who had been convicted of criminal trespass under a state statute for preaching on the state’s capitol grounds without a permit, only sought declaratory relief prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the allegedly unconstitutional permit requirement so that he could preach on the state capitol grounds in the future unimpeded by the permit requirement, because he did not challenge or seek to overturn his criminal trespass conviction
- holding that, to the extent the plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing a statute requiring that he obtain a permit to speak on public grounds, his claim was ripe because he alleged a “continued threat of enforcement” of the statute, which would “chill and deter” his present and future speech
- holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “does not prohibit federal courts from exercising jurisdiction where the plaintiffs claim is merely ‘a general challenge to the constitutionality of the state law applied in the state action’ rather than a challenge to the law’s application in a particular state case.”
- holding that the plaintiff’s action was not barred by Rooker-Feldman because the plaintiff had “not challenged his state court criminal trespass conviction,” but sought prospective injunctive and declaratory relief
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I believe the district court properly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff made a general challenge as well as an applied challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinance in the state-court proceeding, the state-court judgment addressed and confirmed the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to plaintiff and generally, and plaintiff did not appeal.
It is clear that plaintiff is making the same applied challenge to the constitutionality of the ordinance in his federal complaint here, and on that basis the district court applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. While plaintiff does not directly ask that his conviction be set aside, he does complain that defendants-appellees “im-permissibly interfered with the exercise of Pastor Hood’s rights of conscience and religion and freedom of speech guaranteed by Section 1.027 and 1.11 of the Ohio Constitution,” and asks that “a judgment and decree declaring that Chapter 128-4 of the *600 Ohio Administrative Code and Section 105.41 are unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs activities in this case.” The activity described in the complaint is the May 18, 2000 activity in which the state “unconstitutionally stopped plaintiffs speech.” To read plaintiffs federal complaint as making only a facial challenge would require us to disregard the fact that plaintiff seeks injunctive relief only for himself and a declaration that his conduct as described in the complaint was constitutionally protected. To grant him the relief sought would require us to consider the same issues previously decided in Ohio state court; i.e., the constitutionality of the ordinance as applied to plaintiffs conduct on May 18, 2000. Plaintiffs general challenge is “inextricably intertwined” with the state court proceeding. Further, plaintiff made a general challenge in state court. The state court has actually ruled on his general challenge. As the district court noted, the issue was explicitly decided in the criminal case. Plaintiff cannot seek to have it relitigated here.