Ann Bailey v. Brian Bailey

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Brian Bailey’s motion for reconsideration of an order remanding removed Virginia child-custody, support, visitation, and contempt proceedings. The court held that the requested review was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and found no clear error, intervening change in law, or new evidence. The court also declined to clarify the prior remand order because Bailey’s related constitutional claims had been addressed in a separate § 1983 action.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because Bailey identified no intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error of law, or manifest injustice.
2. Bailey’s requested removal and relief necessarily required federal review of the merits and effects of state-court decisions, so the claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
3. The court declined to clarify the remand order because its separate decision addressing Bailey’s § 1983 claims spoke for itself.

Questions Presented

1. Whether reconsideration of the remand order was warranted because the court allegedly misapplied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
2. Whether Bailey’s notice of removal presented independent federal constitutional claims that were not dependent on invalidating state-court judgments.
3. Whether the court should clarify that its remand order was jurisdictional only and did not adjudicate the merits of Bailey’s constitutional claims.

Disposition

other