United States v. Darold Maxfield

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1996
___________________________
Bret Healy
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
Healy Ranch Partnership
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff
v.
Supreme Court of South Dakota; Healy Ranch Inc.; Mary Ann Osborne; Barry
Healy; Bryce Healy; Albert Steven Fox; Larry Mines; Sheila Mines; Janine M.
Kern; Mark E. Salter; Jon C. Sogn; Patricia J. Devaney; Scott P. Myren; Steven R. Jensen
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of South Dakota - Southern
____________
Submitted: March 27, 2025
Filed: April 3, 2025
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

-- 1 of 2 --

Bret Healy appeals after the district court1 dismissed his civil action and
imposed sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).
After careful review of the record, we conclude the dismissal was proper
because Claim 1 was barred by the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine; Claims 2, 3, and 4
were barred by res judicata; and Claim 5 was barred by judicial immunity. See
Dalton v. NPC Int’l, Inc., 932 F.3d 693, 695 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); see
also Waller v. Groose, 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (affirmance
permitted on any grounds supported by record). We also conclude the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Healy. See Ivy v. Kimbrough, 115 F.3d
550, 553 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
______________________________
1The Honorable Roberto Lange, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of South Dakota.
2Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --