Vuyanich v. Smithton Borough

5 F.4th 379

Timothy E. VUYANICH; Carol L. Vuyanich, Appellants

v.SMITHTON BOROUGH; Chief Michael R. Natale, in his individual capacity; Patrolman Ralph R. Marsico, Jr., in his individual capacity; Dale H. Cooper ; Marsh Auto Savage Inc. ; Harry F. Thompsons Garage, Inc.; Jarvis Auto & Truck Salvage; R&R Auto Recycling ; South Huntingdon Township; Supervisor Eddie Troupe, in his individual capacity; Supervisor Matthew Jennewine, in his individual capacity; Supervisor Richard Gates, in his individual capacity

No. 20-1813

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued on December 15, 2020

Opinion filed: July 27, 2021

Alexander W. Brown [Argued], Bernard P. Matthews, Jr., Meyer Darragh Buckler Bebenek & Eck, 40 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 410, Greensburg, PA 15601, Counsel for Appellants

Suzanne B. Merrick [Argued], Thomas Thomas & Hafer, U.S. Steel Tower, 600 Grant Street, Suite 2600, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellees Borough of Smithton, Chief Michael R. Natale, and Patrolman Ralph Marsico, Jr.

Adam R. Gorzelsky, 101 North Main Street, Suite 106, Greensburg, PA 15601, Counsel for Appellee Harry F. Thompson's Garage Inc.

John P. Morgenstern, Penelope B. O'Connell, O'Hagan Meyer, 1500 Market Street, East Tower, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Counsel for Appellee Jarvis Auto & Truck Salvage

Dennis J. Mulvihill [Argued], William C. Robinson, III, Amy V. Sims, Robb Leonard & Mulvihill, 500 Grant Street, BNY Mellon Center, Suite 2300, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellees Township of South Huntingdon, Supervisor Eddie Troupe, Supervisor Matthew Jennewine, Supervisor Richard Gates

Before: AMBRO, BIBAS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

OPINION OF THE COURT

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

Two homeowners allegedly treated their property as a junkyard. This resulted in misdemeanor criminal charges against one of the homeowners for creating a public nuisance. The surrounding borough sought to clean up the property while the charges were pending, and a Pennsylvania state court judge authorized the borough to do so after giving the homeowner a brief window to collect any belongings he wished to keep. The homeowners failed to retrieve their possessions during this window, and thereafter the borough and other affiliated entities hauled away the vehicles and other items that were strewn throughout the yard. In an effort to obtain damages compensating them for their seized property, the homeowners filed suit in federal court, alleging violations of the United States Constitution and state law.

The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker - Feldman doctrine, which precludes federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over appeals from unfavorable state court judgments—typically a task reserved for the United States Supreme Court. But that Court has repeatedly emphasized that the doctrine is a narrow one that defeats federal subject-matter jurisdiction only under limited circumstances. And we have a precise four-pronged inquiry for when Rooker - Feldman should be invoked. When even one of the four prongs is not satisfied, it is not proper to dismiss on Rooker - Feldman grounds. Because this case does not satisfy all four prongs, we reverse.

In so holding, we do not suggest that federal cases implicating matters previously litigated in state court should automatically survive a motion to dismiss. Far from it: there are many other principles, including claim and issue preclusion, that may doom such federal claims. But many of those principles are non-jurisdictional, and courts should be wary of finding a Rooker - Feldman jurisdictional issue where none exists.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Timothy E. Vuyanich and his mother, Carol L. Vuyanich, reside at a property in Smithton, Pennsylvania they own jointly.¹ Their property straddles two municipal corporations in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania: Smithton Borough (the "Borough") and South Huntingdon Township (the "Township"). The latter gave the former jurisdiction to enforce its ordinances on the Vuyanich property.

In July 2018, the Borough brought misdemeanor criminal charges against Timothy for abandoning inoperable vehicles, old appliances, and other trash on and around his property, in violation of local ordinances and state statutes. This was not Timothy's first run-in with local authorities; he had received multiple prior citations for keeping his motor vehicles in a nuisance condition but had allegedly refused to dispose of them. Borough officials claim the property had been in an "offensive condition" since at least 2014, and that neighbors had complained the "junk" smelled bad, attracted snakes and rats, presented dangers to small children, and was an eyesore that might lower the value of their homes. App. at 92.

Apparently impatient to have the property cleaned without waiting "months and months for the criminal charges to work their way through court," the Borough and the District Attorney's office agreed to seek the state criminal court's assistance in the meantime to get the job done. App. at 99–100. The Vuyaniches' complaint references minutes from a January 2019 meeting at which the Borough council apparently "talked about not telling Vuyanich what is happening beforehand, so that he doesn't remove items." App. at 34, 84.

In June 2019, a state court judge held a status conference on Timothy's criminal case, at which Timothy, his public defender, an assistant district attorney, and Borough police chief Michael R. Natale appeared. The parties discussed the best means for cleaning up the property—a topic Timothy claims he was not adequately warned would be discussed. Natale represented that, "under the [B]orough ordinance that [Timothy] was originally cited for, the [B]orough has full authority to move in immediately and remediate the problem." App. at 121. The public defender told the judge Timothy needed more time to remove the items he wished to keep, in part because he was in poor health and his mobility was limited, and the judge agreed he would have 20 days to do so. But the judge also stated that, after the expiration of 20 days, "the [B]orough will be authorized to go in and start the clean up process." App. at 124.

After the hearing, the state court judge issued an order (the "June 18, 2019 order") continuing the criminal case for 60 days. It explained that this additional time was needed for a Borough "contractor to finish clean-up of [the] property [and] to determine [the] total cost" Timothy owed for the clean-up effort. App. at 127. It also provided that Timothy had "20 days to remove his personal items from [the] property." Id. It was silent, however, as to which items the Borough was authorized to seize and whether those items could be seized permanently or just temporarily.

On July 9, 2019, 21 days after the state court hearing, the Borough began cleaning the property without the Vuyaniches' permission or a warrant. The cleanup effort continued until early October 2019. Natale and Ralph Marsico, Jr. of the Borough Police Department, along with Township Supervisors Eddie Troupe, Matthew Jennewine, and Richard Gates, allegedly participated in this effort, and contractors Dale Cooper, Harry F. Thompson's Garage, R&R Auto Recycling, Jarvis Auto & Truck Salvage, and Marsh Auto Salvage, Inc. were hired to haul away the debris strewn throughout the yard.²

The Vuyaniches take issue not only with this "intrusion[ ]," App. at 65, but also with the manner in which the cleanup was conducted. They claim some of the Defendants entered the "curtilage"³ area of their yard, coming close to their dwelling, "physically contacting" their private shed, and ignoring the many "no trespassing" signs posted throughout the property. App. at 46. The Vuyaniches further allege Natale told some of the Defendants they could keep, sell, use, scrap, or destroy the items seized from the property without creating an inventory showing which items had resale value or had been destroyed. At least one of the Defendants was apparently able to obtain a small sum ($110) for scrap metal removed from the property.

Believing some of the removed items to be valuable, the Vuyaniches sent a cease-and-desist letter to a subset of the Defendants in July 2019, threatening to file a federal suit unless the Borough compensated them. An attorney for the Borough responded that they would not get even "one cent." App. at 152. In response, the Vuyaniches made good on their threat, filing a federal suit in October 2019 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments alongside state law claims for conversion and trespass.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint, which the District Court granted in April 2020, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker - Feldman doctrine. The Vuyaniches moved to alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which the District Court denied. The Vuyaniches then appealed to us. Shortly thereafter, in May 2020, Timothy was convicted of the public nuisance charge and ordered to pay $5,100 in restitution for the cost of cleaning up his property.

II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

The District Court had federal question jurisdiction over the Vuyaniches' § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction over the related state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). We discuss the issue of our jurisdiction below, but to the extent we have subject-matter jurisdiction, we exercise it under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Great W. Mining & Min. Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP , 615 F.3d 159, 163 n.3 (3d Cir. 2010) ; see also United States v. Ruiz , 536 U.S. 622, 628, 122 S.Ct. 2450, 153 L.Ed.2d 586 (2002) ("[A] federal court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction."). We exercise fresh review over the District Court's dismissal of the suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Great W. Mining , 615 F.3d at 163.⁴

III. Legal...