## Facts

- The Philadelphia Family Court operated a nursery used as a supervised visitation facility when supervised visitation was ordered.
- The administrative judge approved closing the nursery on specified dates in late 1993 and early 1994.
- A noncustodial parent whose visitation was limited to the nursery, along with an advocacy organization, sought to enjoin the late-1993/early-1994 closures in state court.
- The state’s highest court denied preliminary injunctive relief; no further review was pursued.
- After an additional closure was authorized for April 3, 1994, plaintiffs filed a federal § 1983 putative class action alleging violations of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights tied to parental and associational interests.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the federal suit was jurisdictionally barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it effectively sought review of the prior state-court disposition.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, including the Rooker-Feldman argument.
- Defendants took an interlocutory appeal, asserting immediate appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine.

## Issues

1. Whether an interlocutory order denying dismissal based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is immediately appealable as a collateral order.

## Decision

- The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- It held that denial of a Rooker-Feldman defense is not a final collateral order and therefore is not immediately appealable.
- The district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss remained in place, and the federal action could proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under the collateral order doctrine, immediate appeal is limited to orders that (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue separate from the merits, and (3) are effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional doctrine limiting lower federal courts from exercising de facto appellate review of state-court judgments.
- Denials of jurisdictional defenses generally fail the collateral order doctrine’s “effectively unreviewable” requirement because any error can be corrected on appeal after final judgment.
- Rooker-Feldman denials differ from certain immunity denials (e.g., qualified immunity) that may be immediately appealable because they protect a right not to be subjected to trial and its burdens.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that a district court’s refusal to dismiss a case under Rooker-Feldman must ordinarily await review after final judgment because it does not satisfy the collateral order doctrine’s requirement of effective unreviewability, preserving the final-judgment rule and limiting interlocutory appeals.


Bryant v. Sylvester, 57 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 1995)