Jurisdiction; Whether plaintiff’s suit against three state appeals court judges was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; 28 USC § 1257; The Declaratory Judgment Act; § 2201(a); Whether the complaint presented a justiciable controversy; Sanctions under § 1927 & Fed.R.App.P. 38

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-law firm’s constitutional claims against defendants-Tennessee state court appellate judges based on lack of jurisdiction. It also directed the firm and its “counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be assessed against them on appeal.” Plaintiff sought a declaration that the judges had violated its Fourteenth Amendment rights by making false statements in a written opinion involving the firm. The district court ruled that “it lacked jurisdiction because plaintiff’s claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman, and because the complaint did not present a justiciable controversy.” The court agreed in both respects. As to the first, plaintiff’s action sought to have the district court “‘impermissibly review the factual basis of the relevant opinion.’” As to the second, it held that plaintiff failed to “present a justiciable case or controversy because plaintiff requested a ruling only on whether the past actions of defendants were right or wrong, which could not affect the present relationship between the parties.” Thus, the district court was not presented with an Article III controversy and lacked jurisdiction. As to defendants’ request that the court sanction the firm and its attorney individually under § 1927 and Rule 38, it found that “the jurisdictional defects presented by the complaint were ‘not . . . close issue[s],’” and that the firm “forfeited case-dispositive issues by failing to raise them for review.” In addition, the court shared “the district court’s concern for attorney Parrish’s penchant for calling state judges’ integrity into question seemingly whenever they disagree with him.” It instructed defendants to file an affidavit setting forth their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by the appeal. Affirmed. The court retained jurisdiction pending its resolution of sanctions.