Professional Documents
Culture Documents
__________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM YEE;
Plaintiff – Appellant
Plaintiff
v.
Defendants – Appellees
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
__________________________________________________________________
2
STATEMENT OF QUESTION PRESENTED
licensed by the State Bar of Michigan. This case has its roots in a dispute over the
legal level of Bambi Lake in Michigan, which adjoins Yee’s property. The dispute
was fully litigated in the state trial court, the Michigan Court of Appeals, and the
Michigan Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court denied Yee’s petition
Rather than accept defeat, however, Yee began a relentless campaign to sue
just about everyone who has any remote connection to the state-court litigation
complaint include the state trial court; the trial court judge; the Michigan Court of
Appeals and several of its judges individually; the Michigan Supreme Court and all
seven of its justices; Michigan’s State Court Administrative Office (SCAO); the
one of the lawyers who represented one of Yee’s neighbors, a fellow riparian
owner on Bambi Lake who was one of Yee’s opponents in the state-court action.
For good measure, Yee has also added his grievances arising from his divorce, and
2
sued anyone involved in that litigation, including judges, the Friend of the Court,
Though Yee, through artful drafting, has concocted a number of labels for
his grievances, his complaint, at its essence, did nothing more than ask that the
district court declare that the state-court orders were invalid or otherwise improper.
The district court properly ruled that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids such a
ruling, and dismissed Yee’s claims against Sullivan with prejudice. Yee appealed.
Sullivan asks this Court to affirm the district court’s dismissal of Yee’s claims
against him.
3
STATEMENT OF FACTS
County, Michigan, in 1986 (R.158, Apx, pg. ___). Yee claimed that the lake level
between 1986, when he bought the house, and 1994 was 799 feet above sea level
(R.2, Apx., pgs ____; R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Yee alleged that his property was
damaged by flooding when the lake’s level was raised to 800.95 feet above sea level
In 1995, Yee sued the owners of other property surrounding the lake in the
Shiawassee Circuit Court (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Because the sole Shiawassee
circuit judge recused himself, Michigan’s State Court Administrative Office (SCAO)
appointed Judge Judith Fullerton of Genesee County Circuit Court to preside over the
case (R.158, Apx., pg ___ n 2). The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
in the case (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Defendant-appellee Alan R. Sullivan is a lawyer
who represented one of the riparian owners Yee sued, George Braidwood, Sr.
Yee’s complaint sought monetary relief and also injunctive relief to set the
lake level a 799 feet above sea level (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). The DEQ filed a
motion, in which the riparian owners concurred, that alleged that the court lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction under the Inland Lake Level Act (ILLA) of Michigan’s
4
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA).1 The DEQ argued
that the ILLA set the exclusive procedure to establish a legal lake level for an inland
lake by requiring that any action to set a legal level must be initiated by a county
board of commissioners (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Judge Fullerton granted the motion
and dismissed the case on February 3, 1999 (R.158, Apx., pg. ___).
Yee appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). While
the appeal was pending, Yee filed two more lawsuits in Shiawassee Circuit Court:
one named the Shiawassee County Board of Commissioners, the Shiawassee County
Drain Commissioner, and George Braidwood, Jr., as defendants, and sought to enjoin
the county commissioners from setting a legal lake level; the other was styled a
“quiet title” action, but the relief requested was the same as the other two lawsuits
(R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Shiawassee Circuit Court’s judge again recused himself, and
the SCAO again assigned the case to Judge Fullerton (R.158, Apx., pg. ___ n 4).
Judge Fullerton dismissed both cases (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Yee appealed both
dismissals to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which consolidated all three of Yee’s
that the court correctly dismissed the first case because of a lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and that the two later cases were both frivolous. Yee v. Shiawassee
1
MCL s 324.30701 et seq.
5
County Bd. of Commissioners, 251 Mich. App. 379, 651 N.W.2d 756 (2002). Yee
filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which was
denied. Yee v. Shiawassee County Bd. of Commissioners, 468 Mich. 852, 658
N.W.2d 491 (2003). Yee unsuccessfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court
for certiorari. Yee v. Shiawassee County Bd. of Commissioners, 540 U.S. 1004, 124
S. Ct. 538, 157 L. Ed. 2d 409 (2003) (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). The Board’s action
began in June 2002, and Yee was permitted to intervene (R.158, Apx., pg. ___).
In the meantime, the other riparian property owners adjoining Bambi Lake
seeking to set a legal lake level, which, after studying the issue, the Board voted to
do. The Shiawassee Circuit Court established the lake level consistent with the
Board’s petition (R.158, Apx., pg. ___). Yee appealed to the Michigan Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court. In re Lake Level for Bambi Lake,
unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued September
28, 2004 (Docket No. 244794); 2004 WL 2169037; 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 2556.
The Michigan Supreme Court denied Yee’s application for leave to appeal. In re
Lake Level for Bambi Lake, 472 Mich. 939, 698 N.W.2d 392 (2005). The United
States Supreme Court denied Yee’s petition for certiorari on January 23, 2006. Yee
v. Shiawassee County, 546 U.S. 1158, 126 S. Ct. 1188, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1142 (2006).
6
Yee began this federal case in November 2006, filing a complaint asserting a
number of claims against dozens of defendants (R.1, Yee’s Complaint). Yee filed a
first amended complaint soon after, which named additional parties (R.2, Apx., pgs.
___). Yee’s complaint is more than 160 pages long and lists a number of grievances
against such parties as Judge Fullerton, the attorneys representing the riparian owners
on Bambi Lake, the Michigan Court of Appeals, several Court of Appeals judges, the
Michigan Supreme Court and each of its justices, the Michigan Attorney General, the
the Shiawassee Prosecuting Attorney, the SCAO, the DEQ, and many more (R.2,
Apx., pgs. ___). The case was assigned to United States District Judge Gerald E.
Rosen.
Fullerton (and later the Michigan appellate courts, and, apparently, the United States
Supreme Court) wrongly decided the Bambi Lake litigation (R.2, Apx., pgs. ___).
Yee’s complaint doesn’t simply contest an unfavorable decision, but instead goes as
far as alleging that it was the result of a vast “conspiracy” involving the attorneys
representing the riparian owners, the Michigan Attorney General, the county
government, and Judge Fullerton (R.2, Apx., pgs. ___). According to Yee, these
parties conspired together to deprive Yee of a number of rights (R.2, Apx., pgs. ___).
7
All defendants, except Yee’s ex-wife Christine Roche and her lawyer Philip
groups (for example, the motions filed by the judges and governmental parties were
considered together), and entered several opinions granting each group of motions.
Judge Rosen granted Sullivan’s motion to dismiss in an opinion and order entered
Judge Rosen held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Yee’s complaint
because Yee’s claims “necessarily would require [the district court] to review
Judge Fullerton’s various decisions,” which lower federal courts do not have
jurisdiction to do:
orders. Yee also filed several unrelated motions seeking stays and injunctions of
his state-court divorce case, all of which were also denied. This appeal followed.
2
Roche and Dulmage were ultimately dismissed when Judge Rosen declined to
exercise jurisdiction over Yee’s state-law claims against them.
8
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
action from challenging the state-court judgment in a federal district court. Here,
Yee’s claims do nothing but challenge the propriety of the state-court proceedings.
Yee’s entire complaint is premised on his contention that his various state-court
cases were wrongly decided and that Judge Fullerton’s various orders and
judgments concerning Bambi Lake’s legal level violated his rights. Rooker-
Feldman dictates that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to second-guess state-
court decisions. Therefore, the district court properly ruled that it lacked subject
ARGUMENT I
A. Standard of Review
for summary judgment de novo. Stanek v. Greco, 323 F.3d 476, 478 (6th Cir.
9
2003) (motions to dismiss); Peters v. Lincoln Electric Co., 285 F.3d 456, 465 (6th
Cir. 2003). Likewise, “[t]his court reviews de novo a district court’s dismissal of a
case on the grounds that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives it of subject matter
jurisdiction.” Fieger v. Ferry, 471 F.3d 637, 643 (6th Cir. 2006).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, gets its name from two United States Supreme
Court cases, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 68 L. Ed. 362, 44 S. Ct.
149 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
75 L. Ed. 2d 206, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983). In Rooker, the plaintiff sued in federal
district court alleging that an Indiana state court judgment, which was appealed to
and affirmed by the Indiana State Court, violated the United States Constitution.
Id. at 414-415. The plaintiff asked the district court to declare the state-court
judgment “null and void.” Id. The Supreme Court rejected the contention that it
was the province of the state court to decide the constitutional questions, if there
were any, and that if the wrong decision was made, the appellate process was the
10
void, but merely left it open to reversal or modification in
an appropriate and timely appellate proceeding. Unless
and until so reversed or modified, it would be an
effective and conclusive adjudication. [Id. at 415
(emphasis added).]
The Supreme Court emphasized that “[u]nder the legislation of Congress, no court
of the United States other than [the Supreme] Court could entertain a proceeding to
reverse or modify the [state-court] judgment for errors of that character.” Id. at
original,” as opposed to appellate. Id. The district court in Rooker therefore ruled
that it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s case, and the Supreme Court affirmed.
District of Columbia Bar, but neither graduated from a law school approved by the
American Bar Association (ABA). The District of Columbia required all Bar
applicants to have graduated from ABA-accredited law schools. Feldman did not
attend law school, but rather, studied law under a strict apprenticeship program
Virginia Bar after completing the program and passing the Bar examination. Id. at
465. He later applied for membership in the Maryland Bar, which, like the D.C.
Maryland Bar granted Feldman a waiver of that requirement. Id. Feldman asked
11
the highest D.C. court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, to waive the
ABA-accredited law school requirement and allow him to take the Bar
examination. The D.C. Court of Appeals denied the waiver. Id. at 468. Feldman
then sued the D.C. Court of Appeals in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, and sought a ruling that the denial violated his constitutional
rights and an injunction requiring the D.C. Court of Appeals to either admit
Feldman without examination, or to allow him to take the Bar examination. Id.
The federal district court dismissed the case, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to
review the decision “of a jurisdiction’s highest court.” Id. at 470. The Supreme
Court agreed, holding that “[r]eview of such determinations can be obtained only
courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court
state court proceedings.” Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkeley, 305 F.3d 386
(6th Cir, 2002). “Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction
that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive of the federal proceeding
judgment.” Tropf v. Fidelity National Title Ins. Co., 289 F. 3d 929, 937 (6th Cir
2002).
12
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “a party losing in state court is barred
from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in
a United States District Court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state
judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v De Grandy, 512 US
In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 293; 125
S. Ct. 1517; 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005), the Supreme Court acknowledged that not
every federal lawsuit that is premised on a disagreement with a state court’s legal
present[s] some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a
state court has reached in a case to which he was a party . . ., then there is
jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under
After the Supreme Court decided Exxon Mobil, this Court addressed the
McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382, 393 (6th Cir. 2006). This Court held that
the relevant “inquiry … is the source of the injury the plaintiff alleges in the
13
federal complaint,” and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies where the
Here, Yee’s entire complaint is premised on his contention that his various
state court matters have been wrongly decided, and that Judge Fullerton’s various
orders and judgments concerning Bambi Lake’s legal level have violated any
number of his rights. These state-court orders and judgments are the alleged
sources of Yee’s claimed injuries. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district
court lacked jurisdiction over Yee’s complaint because the district court could not
rule that the decisions in the course of the state court proceedings were made in
error.
Yee has unsuccessfully litigated, several times, the Bambi Lake issue in the
state circuit court, the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court,
and the United States Supreme Court. Undeterred, Yee moved on to the district
court, seeking redress for the alleged wrongs committed in connection with the
Bambi Lake litigation. Incredibly, plaintiff was not simply content to call his state-
14
court defeat a loss, but rather, he has alleged that it is the result of some vast, wide-
Yee’s complaint asked the district court to declare that the multiple judgments of
multiple state courts were wrong, that Yee should have won his efforts to set the
legal lake level at 799 feet above sea level, and that his loss was caused by some
precisely what the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents, and Judge Rosen correctly
On appeal, Yee does not cite a single case in support of his assertion that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply. Instead, he states, conclusorily, that “the
fact, his brief contains a barely cohesive jumble of numbered paragraphs that
Yee’s status as an in pro per party is no excuse for this complete failure to
adequately brief his appeal. Yee is not simply an unrepresented layperson, but
virtually every paper Yee has filed in this action, including his brief on appeal in
this Court, lists his State Bar of Michigan membership number (also known as a
“P” number) next to his name on either the caption or the signature line, or both.
And Yee is also a licensed medical doctor. In short, Yee is a well-educated man
15
who is both educated in the law, and licensed by the state of Michigan to practice
law.
support reversal of the district court’s order, based primarily on the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine.
BY: ________________________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee Sullivan
4000 Town Center, Suite 909
Southfield, MI 48075
(248) 355-4141
16