Baker v. Marsh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
HLt-.-
DEC 11 im
/iO -
WILLIAM RAY BAKER, 5:22-CV-05068-CBK
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
vs. AND ORDER
JAMES E. MARSH,
Defendant.
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against Jairies E. Marsh alleging that, while he
was acting as the Director, a staff attorney, and Administrative Law Judge for the South
Dakota Department ofLabor he violated plaintiffs federal constitutional or statutory
rights in relation to plaintiffs worker's compensation claim which was filed in 2015 and
concluded in 2022. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the basis oflack of subject
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
I. Rooker-Feldman.
"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power
authorized by Constitution and statute." Gunn v. Minton. 568 U.S. 251, 256, 133 S. Ct.
1059, 1064, 185 L. Ed. 2d 72(2013)(internal quotations omitted)(quotins Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America. 511 U.S. 375. 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d391
(1994)). "The threshold inquiry in every federal case is whether the court has
jurisdiction" and the Eighth Circuit has "admonished districtjudges to be attentive to a
satisfaction ofjurisdictional requirements in all cases." Rock Island Millwork Co. v.
Hedges-Gough Lumber Co.. 337 F.2d 24, 26-27(8th Cir. 1964), and Sanders v. Clemco
Industries, 823 F.2d 214, 216 (8th Cir. 1987). As a threshold matter, the district court
must determine whether federal subject matter jurisdiction exists and this Court may raise
Case 5:22-cv-05068-CBK Document 69 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

such issue sua sponte. Auto-Owners Inc. CO. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian
Reservation. 495 F.3d 1017, 1020(8th Cir. 2007).
The facts alleged in the complaint appear to stem from a denial of plaintiffs
workers compensation case before the South Dakota Department of Labor, Division of
Labor and Management. Plaintiff contends in his complaint that defendant, acting as the
Director, Staff Attorney, and Administrative Law Judge violated plaintiffs
"Constitutional Rights, federal laws), ofthe American (sic) Disabillities (sic) Act."
Plaintiff nowhere alleges what federal constitutional right he claims defendant violated,
only that defendant's actions violated his rights. His only mention ofthe Americans with
Disabilities Act is the above language.
Plaintiff contends that defendant allowed evidence to be used against him during
state jurisdiction proceedings. Plaintiff contends that his interaction with the defendant
began in the Summer of2015 when plaintiff filed his workers compensation complaint.
Plaintiff references a case decision dated July 17, 2017, a decision from August 2020,
and resulting South Dakota Circuit Court and Supreme Court proceedings. Plaintiff
contends defendant allowed "work comp fraud" and labored under a conflict of interest
during plaintiffs workers compensation proceedings.
I take judicial notice ofthe records ofthe South Dakota Department of Labor and
Regulation available at https://dlr.sd.gov/workers compensation/decisions.aspx. On
August 30, 2018, defendant issued an order (signed as Staff Attorney acting as
Administrative Law Judge, South Dakota Department of Labor & Regulation, Division of
Labor and Management) based upon findings offact and conclusions oflaw issued
following a hearing, finding that plaintiff was not permanently and totally disabled as a
result of workplace injuries. HF No. 55, 2015/16. That decision was appealed to the
South Dakota Circuit Court, Hughes County, Civ. 18-187. On June 28, 2019, the Circuit
Court affirmed the Department's decision that plaintiff was not permanently disabled as a
result of a workplace injury. The matter was remanded to determine what medical
expenses and benefits may be due as a result ofthe workplace injury he did sustain.
Following remand and the subsequent Circuit Court entry ofjudgment, plaintiff appealed
2
Case 5:22-cv-05068-CBK Document 69 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

to the South Dakota Supreme Court. The South Dakota Supreme Court issued its
decision on April 26, 2022, affirming the Department and the Circuit Court's
determination that plaintiff failed to sustain his claim for permanent total disability.
Baker v. Rapid City Regional Hospital. 978 NW2d 368(SD 2022).
The Rooker-Feldman(Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.. 263 U.S. 413(1923), and
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman.460 U.S. 462(1983)), doctrine forecloses indirect
attempts to undermine state court decisions. Likewise, a federal constitutional claim, e.g.
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is "inextricably intertwined" with a state courtjudgment ifthe
federal claim could succeed only to the extent that the state court wrongfully decided the
issue before it. The doctrine applies even though a party to the federal action was not a
party in the state court action. See Lemonds v. St. Louis County. 222 F.3d 488, 492-95
(8th Cir. 2000). The doctrine applies to claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, as
well. Keene Com, v. Cass. 908 F.2d 293,297 (8th Cir. 1990).
This Court "is in essence being called upon to review a state court decision."
Feldman. 460 U.S. at 482 n.l6. See also Mosbv v. Ligon. 418 F.3d 927(8th Cir. 2005).
Federal district courts are courts of original jurisdiction. This Court is precluded from
serving as a court of appeal to review the state courtjudgments entered in plaintiffs
workers compensation case, since that appellate function is reserved to the United States
Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257.
The United States Supreme Court in 2005 narrowed application ofthe Rooker/Feldman
doctrine to "cases ofthe kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-
court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-courtjudgments rendered before the
(federal) court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection ofthose
judgments." Exxon Mobil Com, v. Saudi Basic Indus.. 544 U.S. 280,284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-
22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454(2005).
Exxon Mobil makes clear that the Rooker/Feldman doctrine precludes federal
district courtjurisdiction only ifthe federal suit is commenced after the state court
proceedings have ended. See [Exxon Mobile,] 544 U.S. at 1527("[Njeither RooArer
nor Feldman supports the notion that properly invoked concurrent jurisdiction
vanishes if a state court reaches judgment on the same or related question while
the case remains subjudice in a federal court."); see also Mothershedv. Justices of
Case 5:22-cv-05068-CBK Document 69 Filed 12/19/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

Supreme Court,410 F.3d 602,604-05 n. 1 (9th Cir.2005)(determining whether
state-court proceedings were complete as the first step of a ^osX-Exxon Mobil
Rooker/Feldman analysis). There is no judgment to review if suit is filed in
federal district court prior to completion ofthe state-court action. Rather,
"[djisposition ofthe federal action, once the state-court adjudication is complete,
would be governed by preclusion law." Exxon Mobil, 125 S.Ct. at 1527.
Domheim v. Sholes. 430 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir. 2005). See also Riehm v. Kngelkinp;.
538 F.3d 952, 964(8th Cir. 2008)("Rooker-Feldman is a narrow doctrine. It applies
only to cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court
judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district
court review and rejection ofthose judgments.")(cleaned up).
Plaintiff is seeking damages based upon defendant's denial of his workers
compensation claim for total disability benefits. Defendant's decision was affirmed by
both the South Dakota Circuit Court and the South Dakota Supreme Court. Plaintiff is
attempting to challenge defendant's decision, issued while acting as an administrative law
judge considering plaintiffs claim for total disability benefits. The Rooker/Feldman
doctrine precludes this Court's jurisdiction in this case.
II. Sovereign Immunity.
Defendant contends this Court lacks jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign
immunity. Plaintiffsued defendant in his official capacity. An official capacity claim "is
only nominally against the official and in fact is against the official's office and thus the
sovereign itself." Lewis v. Clarke. 197 L. Ed. 2d 631, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1291 (2017). An
action against the sovereign is barred by sovereign immunity. Regents ofthe Univ. of
California v. Doe. 519 U.S. 425, 429, 117 S. Ct. 900, 903-04, 137 L. Ed. 2d 55 (1997).
III. Failure to State a Claim.
Defendant contends that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted against defendant. In order to state a claim redressable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, plaintiff must allege that(1) defendant violated a right secured by the
Constitution or laws ofthe United States and (2) defendant was a person acting under the
Case 5:22-cv-05068-CBK Document 69 Filed 12/19/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

color of state law when doing so. West v. Atkins. 487 U.S. 42,48, 108 S. Ct. 2250,2255,
101 L.Ed. 2d40(1988).
Plaintiffs official capacity suit against defendant, who was a state employee
acting within the scope of his employment, is a suit against the State of South Dakota.
"[N]either a State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" under
§ 1983." Will V. Michigan Dent of State Police. 491 U.S. 58, 71, 109 S. Ct. 2304, 2312,
105 L.Ed. 2d 45 (1989).
In any event, plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege the violation of a federal
constitutional or statutory right violated by defendant. Merely stating a legal conclusion
that defendant violated some unnamed constitutional right or violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, without more, fails to state a claim redressable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
IV. Individual Capacity Claim.
Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint to "check the box" stating his action was
also brought against defendant in defendant's individual capacity. Plaintiffs motion was
not filed within 21 day ofthe defendant's motion to dismiss as required by Fed. R. Civ.
P. 15(a)(1). Leave to amend can be granted by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(a)(2) and such leave should be freely given "when justice so requires." Leave to
amend is not appropriate in this case.
The proposed amendment simply adds the allegation that defendant is sued in his
individual capacity. "District courts can deny motions to amend when there are
compelling reasons such as futility ofthe amendment." Silva v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.. 762
F.3d 711, 719(8th Cir. 2014). "Some examples of futile claims are ones that are
duplicative or frivolous or claims that could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6)." Id.(cleaned up).
Even if defendant is sued individually, plaintiffs complaint is still subject to
dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Further, the role of an administrative law
judge is "functionally comparable to that of a judge," entitling an administrative law
judge to absolute immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Cleavinger v. Saxner. 474
U.S. 193, 200, 106 S. Ct. 496, 500, 88 L. Ed. 2d 507(1985). The amended complaint, if
5
Case 5:22-cv-05068-CBK Document 69 Filed 12/19/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

allowed, could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant's motion. Doc. 14, to dismiss the complaint is granted. The
complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs motion, Doc. 23, to amend the complaint is denied.
3. Plaintiffs motions. Docs. 25, 32, 41, 42,44, 46,47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57,
58, 59, 60,62, 63,64,65,67 and 68, and any and all other motions filed by plaintiff are
all frivolous, scandalous, violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, or are otherwise moot and are all
denied.
4. Defendant's motion. Doc. 35, for sanctions is denied as moot.
4. The Clerk shall not accept for filing any further documents filed by the plaintiff
other than a notice of appeal. The plaintiff has filed volumes of papers that are, as set
forth above, frivolous, scandalous and in violation ofRule 11.
DATED this 17th day ofDecember,2022.
BY THE COURT:
THARLES B. KORNMANN
United States District Judge
Case 5:22-cv-05068-CBK Document 69 Filed 12/19/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>