Terry J. Clark v. Debra Anne Taylor

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 23-3566
___________________________
Terry J. Clark
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
v.
Debra Anne Taylor; Richard Andrews; Allan Paul Atha; George Andrew Marriott;
Robert G. Harken, Harken Law Firm; Robert Ray Titus
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City
____________
Submitted: July 24, 2024
Filed: July 29, 2024
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 3 --

Terry Clark appeals after the district court1 dismissed his pro se civil action,
concluding that the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine deprived the court of jurisdiction over
his claims related to events during the trial of a Kansas state court lawsuit.
Upon careful de novo review of the record and the parties’ arguments on
appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Kvalvog v. Park Christian Sch., Inc., 66
F.4th 1147, 1151-52 (8th Cir. 2023) (standard of review). To the extent Clark raised
independent claims that did not challenge the state court’s judgment, we conclude his
claims were precluded by collateral estoppel. See id. at 1152-53 (Rooker-Feldman
does not bar jurisdiction if plaintiff presents some independent claim, albeit one that
denies legal conclusion that state court reached; concluding collateral estoppel barred
claim alleging witness violated federal rights and state law by making false
statements in report and testimony in prior trial); see also Bechtold v. City of
Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 1997) (appellate court may raise
preclusion issue sua sponte). Clark’s claims sought to relitigate issues that were
conclusively determined in the Kansas lawsuit. See Life Invs. Ins. Co. of Am. v.
Corrado, 804 F.3d 908, 913 (8th Cir. 2015) (preclusion effect is governed by first
forum’s law); see also Miller v. KVC Behavioral Healthcare, 506 P.3d 295, 297-98
(Kan. Ct. App. 2022) (res judicata includes issue preclusion or collateral estoppel,
which prevents relitigation in different claim of issues conclusively determined in
prior action); B.E. v. Pistotnik, No. 124,400, 2022 WL 4391063, at *5-6 (Kan. Ct.
App. 2022) (unpublished per curiam) (collateral estoppel barred claims alleging
agreement was fraudulently signed, as factual assertions had been resolved against
plaintiff in prior lawsuit).
1The Honorable Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
2See Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --