WPC# X ^&M*ʙUujT !8mU/$nǹBE5nW( 58Gz mQy9%O]H+㺨zuJ2y꺋RX(eVu; aIeSL'm|,l L:AI<FىN.D<'+zk$1Y$/LS.o, dom u#y\|pAp-vYO ?M[G`dX%5i0: Ҏ򸏂) ޜT?7l9"õ B:#d9z\dFI0.UƝGlĞ2(cXf/%CQQI2V#3q 3Yvbk$IPǠ& $Y4'a_LkVQpu0VFR` RI {%;Xo![_#2 % U8 0G9 U: 0 U@b nT N ^ w 4  + m- 0DD E f a U F  1{H[ 0 c/ 1u 72 0c99b : BHP LaserJet 2100 PCL6,,,,,,,,0X<4 9Z+ Courier New ($XOXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(X(2j$ !XXXX        0  (9 Z(Times New Roman <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@d;Z ^#;yfiles3|xU(#$  0  TABLE AL 9Z+.Courier New Regular  j$XXXX      1    __ ` Thedoctrinehaslimitedexceptions,noneofwhichareat  issueinthiscase.SeeXXXX18Wright,Miller&Cooper,Federal  PracticeandProcedure4469.1,at10001,12737(2ded.2002)#XXXX#.83CIOU[agmLettersA.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.  j$XXXX      3    __d ` dPlaintiffshavefailedtoidentifyanypurported  violationsoftheircivilrightsotherthanthoserelatedtothe  allegeddeficienciesinthereunificationprocess.Allother \ argumentsarewaived. 2   WearemakingnodeterminationsaboutwhethertheADAorthe X RehabilitationActinfactimposeanyobligationtoaccommodate . disabilitiesonastateinthiscontext.Itisclearthoughthat   504oftheRehabilitationActprohibitsdiscriminationbutdoes   notrequire"affirmativeeffortstoovercomethedisabilities `  causedbyhandicaps."Se._Cmty_.Coll.v.Davis,442U.S.397,410 6   (1979).  \    Inparticular,wedonotgetintowhetherplaintiffsare  2  "qualified_individual[s_]"whohavebeen"deniedthebenefitsof.   ..services,programs,oractivities""byreasonof"their   disabilityundertheADA.42U.S.C.12132.Cf.Buchananv. d  Maine,469F.3d158,17374(1stCir.2006).TheMaineLawCourt :  haspreviouslyconsideredacaseinwhichamothercontestedthe `  terminationofherparentalrightsonthebasisofthe_DHHS_'s 6 allegedviolationsoftheADA.SeeInreAngelB.,659A.2d277,   279(Me.1995).Thecourtdeterminedthatthemotherhadfailedto  demonstrateanydenialofservicesbutdidnotexplicitlyaddress h whethertheADAauthorizedherclaim.Id.  j$XXXX      4    __dXXXX ` dPlaintiffs'variantontheargumentisthatthereisno  preclusionifthestatecourtsdidnotresolvethestatutoryand  civilrightsissuesbynamingthosestatutes.Thatargumentfails. \ Grubbv.Pub._Util_._Comm'n_ԀofOhio,281U.S.470,47778(1930)#XXXX#XXXXԚ .#XXXX#(;3$2#  0  .3  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$ !XXXX  - - 0#uXd#   d  j$XXXX      2    __d ` dTheSecondCircuitrecentlydiscussedthispoint,using  ahypotheticalsimilartothefactsofthiscase,inXXXX_Hoblock_v.  AlbanyCountyBd.ofElections,422F.3d77#XXXX<#(XXXX2dCir.2005)#XXXX#.As*,XX!(#XX*the \ courtexplained,"afederalplaintiffcannotescapethe 2 _Rooker_-Feldmanbarsimplybyrelyingonalegaltheorynotraised X instatecourt."XXXXId.at87#XXXXl#.Thecourtcontinued:"Supposeastate . court,basedpurelyonstatelaw,terminatesafather'sparental   rightsandordersthestatetotakecustodyofhisson.Ifthe   fathersuesinfederalcourtforthereturnofhissonongrounds `  thatthestatejudgmentviolateshisfederalsubstantive 6    due-processrightsasaparent,heiscomplainingofaninjury  causedbythestatejudgmentandseekingitsreversal.Thishemay  notdo,regardlessofwhetherheraisedanyconstitutionalclaims \ instatecourt,becauseonlytheSupremeCourtmayhearappeals 2 fromstate-courtjudgments."Id. !XXXX  _TRX3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !     XAXXXaXXA%UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#XAXa#  ˬXXAFortheFirstCircuit#XAXˬ# #XXXXA#  A') ` dE< ` A   No.091174 K  @\ \ _JANEEN_ԀMILLER;JAMES_MAHOOD_,  G  @Plaintiffs,Appellants,   @tt)v. O  @l l _KRISTEN_Ԁ_NICHOLS_;BRENDAHARVEY, K    inhercapacityasCommissioneroftheMaineDepartmentofHealth ! andHumanServices,  @Defendants,Appellees. S A') ` dE<` A O @ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 4   FORTHEDISTRICTOFMAINE   @@*[Hon.GeorgeZ._Singal_,U.S.DistrictJudge] < A') ` dE<` A 8 @@'Before  @@((Lynch,ChiefJudge, y! TorruellaandBoudin,CircuitJudges. O " A') ` dE<!` A !K$     EricH._Mehnert_withwhom_Hawkes_Ԁ&_Mehnert_,_LLP_wereonbrief "0& forappellant.  #'   MelissaReynolds_O'Dea_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,withwhom $( JanetT.Mills,AttorneyGeneralofMaine,andPaulStern,Deputy b% ) AttorneyGeneral,wereonbrieffortheappellees. 8&!* *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  ( $-( $  SI)n$. @40120@SNovember4,2009 )D%0  RHC*&1" @40120 @ R()n$2  (* ! |-(4? % %8XXdd8  %  XXXX$,X` XX$ ` LYNCH,ChiefJudge .Plaintiffsaretheparentsofa  childremovedfromthembythestateafterextensiveproceedings x resultedinafindingthatthebestinterestsofthechildrequired $t terminationoftheirparentalrights.InreG.M.,No.PC0575   (Me.D.Ct.Jan.23,2008).Theparentsthensuedinfederal |  court,assertingviolationsofstatutoryandconstitutionalrights ( x  duringtheterminationproceedingsandparticularlyin $  reunificationeffortsmandatedbystatelaw.Theysought   injunctiverelieftopreventafosterfamily'sadoptionofthe ,|  child,aswellasmonetarydamages. (  ` Plaintiffsappealfromadistrictcourtorderdismissing  theirsuitforlackofjurisdictionandonthebasisofissue 0 preclusion.Becausetheinjunctionsoughtwouldnegatethestate , court'sjudgmentandbecausethefactualissuesunderpinning  plaintiffs'presentclaimsfordamageswereaddressedbythestate 4 court,thedistrictcourt'sdismissalon_Rooker_ԄFeldmanandon 0 issuepreclusiongroundswasappropriate.Weaffirm.     I. 8!"    ` Wetakethefactslargelyasdescribedbythedistrict "4$ courtanddrawnfromtherecordofthestatecourtproceedings. $& Therearenofactsindisputethatarematerialtothemotionto <&!( dismiss.Allfactsrecitedareamatterofpublicrecord. '8#*  ` OnDecember25,2005,plaintiffs_Janeen_ԀMillerandJames )$, _Mahood_Ԁbroughttheirbiologicalinfantdaughter,G.M.,tothe @+&. _emergencyroomofMercyHospitalinPortland,Maine,reportingthat  shehadexperiencedaseizure. Fearingtheywereunabletotreat \ G.M.,themedicalstafftransferredthetwentytwomontholdto X MaineMedicalCenterthatnight. Uponherarrival,doctors   promptlydiagnosed_G.M._Ԁwithseverefailuretothrive,adiagnosis `  appliedtoinfants#XXXX #Ԁwhosephysicaldevelopmentlags"farbelowusual  \  levelsforage."_Stedman_'sMedicalDictionary627(26thed.1995).XXXXԀ     ` Despitethedoctors'seriousconcernsaboutG.M.'s d  condition,Millerand_Mahood_Ԁobjectedtotheperformanceofvarious `  medicaltests,someofwhichweretimesensitive,andinsistedthat   G.M.'ssymptomswerecausedbyaflushotshehadreceivedthat h fall. AfterMillerand_Mahood_Ԁcontinuedtoresisteffortstotreat d G.M.fortwodaysandgavevagueandinconsistentanswersabout  G.M.'sfeedingpatterns,medicalstaffbecameconcernedforG.M.'s l welfarewhileinherparents'care. Thetreatingphysicianrelayed h herconcernstotheMaineDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices  0  ("_DHHS_").    ` OnDecember27,2005_DHHS_ԀobtainedanOrderof 8!" PreliminaryChildProtection,placingthechildin_DHHS_'stemporary "4$ custody. Doctorsexpandedtheirdiagnosisof_G.M.'s_Ԁconditionto $& include"acutepotentiallylifethreateningmetabolicacidosis; <&!( _temporary_Ԁhypothyroidism;_VitaminDdeficientrickets;_Ԁ_profound '8#* developmentaldelays;_Ԁ_and_Ԁinadequateimmunizations."  )$,     ` OnMay8,2006,astatedistrictcourtjudgeentereda @+&. JeopardyOrder,placingG.M.inthefullcustodyof_DHHS_.In  additiontorecountingG.M.'smedicalissues,theorderidentified \ thejeopardypresentedtoG.M.byeachofherparents.Thecourt X particularlynotedMiller's"mentalhealthissues,"includinga   potentialpsychoticdisorder,aswellas_Mahood_'s"tendencytobe `  passiveinhisrelationshipwith[Miller],"atraitthatthestate  \  courtdeterminedadverselyimpacted"[_Mahood_'s]protective   judgment."TheparentsagreedtotheentryoftheJeopardyOrder.  d   ` TheissuanceoftheJeopardyOrderalsorequired_DHHS_Ԁto `  engageinstatutorilymandatedeffortstoreunifyG.M.withher   parents.#XXXX#UnderMainelaw,ifaJeopardyOrderremovesachildfrom h parentalcustodyandgrantscustodyto_DHHS_,_DHHS_Ԁmustplayan d activeroleineffortstorehabilitateandreunifythefamily.See  22_M.R.S.A._Ԁ4041(1A)(A);seealsoInreChristmasC.,721A.2d l 629,630(Me.1998).Mainelawalsoplacesresponsibilitiesonthe h child'sparents,including"[_r]ectify[ing_]and_resolv[ing_]problems  thatpreventthereturnofthechildtothehome"and"[_t]ak[ing_] p  partinareasonablerehabilitationandreunificationplan."22 !l" _M.R.S.A._Ԁ4041(1A)(B);seealsoInreChristmasC.,721A.2dat "$ 630XXXX.  t$&  ` _DHHS_ԀplacedG.M.inatherapeuticfosterhome,whereher  &p!( healthsteadilyimproved. _DHHS_ԀalsoworkedwithG.M.'sparentsto '#* developareunificationplan,and assigneddefendant_Kristen_ x)$, _Nichols_,asocialworker,toassistinthereunificationeffort. $+t&. FollowingapsychiatricevaluationofMiller,_DHHS_Ԁdeterminedthat  reunificationservicesshouldbeprovidedtotheparents \ separately. _Mahood_ԀrelocatedtoaseparateresidencefromMiller, X andG.M.hadregularsupervisedvisitswitheachoftheparents   individually. However,despiteacourtapprovedagreementbetween `  thepartiesmandating_Mahood_'s"separationfrom[Miller]'inall  \  areas,'"asaconditionofreunification,_Mahood_ԀandMiller   maintainedarelationshipwitheachother.  d   ` Ultimately,_DHHS_Ԁconcludedthatreunificationeffortshad `  beenunsuccessful.OnOctober16,2006,_DHHS_Ԁfiledapetitionfor   theTerminationofParentalRights,allegingthatG.M.'sbiological h parentsremainedunableorunwillingtoprotectG.M.fromjeopardy d andwere"unableorunwillingtochangeina_timeframe_Ԁdesignedto  meettheneedsoftheirdaughter."  l  ` BetweenAugustandDecemberof2007,theMainedistrict h courtheldninedaysofhearings,reviewingtestimonyfromtwenty  onewitnesses,includingMillerand_Mahood_. OnJanuary23,2008, p  thecourtissuedathirteenpageorder.Aftercomprehensively !l" evaluatingtheevidencethatMillerand_Mahood_Ԁwereunfitparents "$ forG.M.,thestatecourtfoundthatMillersufferedfrom"severe t$& untreatedmentalhealthissues"and_Mahood_Ԁdemonstrateddeficient  &p!( protectivejudgment. '#*  ` Thecourtspecificallyconcludedthat"Miller'slackof x)$, insightintoherownmentalhealthissuesandherinabilityto $+t&. recognizeanycontributionsheorMr._Mahood_ԀmadetoG.M.'sfailure  tothriveanddevelopmentaldelays,inthefaceoftheoverwhelming \ evidencein_th[e_]record,_provide[d_]clearandconvincingevidence" X thatshewas"unabletoprotectG.M.fromjeopardy"andwas   unlikelytochangeinareasonableperiod. Italsofoundthat `  _Mahood_Ԁsimilarly"_continue[d_]tolackinsightastothereasonfor  \  G.M.'sremoval[and]_continue[d_]toshownoappreciationforthe   impactofhisfailuretoexerciseindependentprotectivejudgment d  on[G.M.'s]failuretothriveandthedevelopmentaldelaysfrom `  whichshemayneverrecover." Theseconclusions,amongothers,   supportedthecourt'sdeterminationthatMillerand_Mahood_'s h parentalrightshadtobeterminated.  d  ` Thestatedistrictcourtfurtherheldthat_DHHS_Ԁ"_ha[d_]  madereasonableeffortstorehabilitateandreunifythefamily," l citingavarietyofservicesthattheagencyhadprovidedthe h family. NotingthatG.M.'sfosterparentswerepreparedtoadopt  her,thecourtconcludedthatitwasinthebestinterestofG.M., p  whohadbeeninfostercareformorethantwoyears,thatparental !l" rightsbeterminated.  "$  ` Miller,_Mahood_,andG.M.'sguardianadlitemallfiled t$& requestsforadditionalfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflaw.   &p!( OnFebruary7,2008,thestatecourtissuedanorder,respondingto '#* someoftherequestsanddeemingfurtherfindingsunnecessary.  x)$,  ` Millerand_Mahood_Ԁappealedtheterminationordertothe $+t&. MaineSupremeJudicialCourt.OnAugust12,2008,theLawCourt  affirmedthejudgment.Itsbriefopinionheldthatthestatetrial \ court"couldhavefoundclearandconvincingevidenceinthe X record"tosupportitsdeterminationsandthatthe"argumentthat   [_DHHS_]didnotengageinlegitimatereunificationefforts[_wa]s_Ԁnot `  supportedbytherecord."InreG.M.,DecisionNo.Mem.08149  \  (Me.,Aug.12,2008). Theparents'subsequentmotiontoreconsider   wasdenied.  d   ` OnOctober22,2008,Millerand_Mahood_Ԁfiledacomplaint `  inthefederalcourtinMaineagainstboth_Nichols_Ԁandher   supervisor,BrendaHarvey,thecommissionerof_DHHS_.Thecomplaint h soughtinjunctiveanddeclaratoryrelieftopreventG.M.'sadoption d byherfosterfamily,aswellasdamagesundertheAmericanswith  DisabilitiesAct("ADA"),theRehabilitationAct,theHealth l InsurancePortabilityandAccountabilityAct("_HIPAA_"),andfor h variousconstitutionalclaimsunder42U.S.C.1983.   ` Thecomplaintallegedinpartthatduringtheperiodwhen p  sheservedasG.M.'scaseworker,_Nichols_Ԁmadenoeffortto !l" accommodateMiller'spossiblementalillnessandwasconsistently "$ biasedinfavorofG.M.'sfosterparents,andthatthisviolated t$& theADAandRehabilitationAct. Plaintiffsclaimedthat_Nichols_  &p!( soughttocondition_Mahood_'sreunificationwithhisdaughteronhis '#* promisenevertoassociatewithMiller,inviolationofboth x)$, parents'FirstAmendmentrightstofreeassociation.Theyalso $+t&. arguedthat_Nichols_Ԁthreatenedthemwithterminationofparental  rightsiftheydidnotwaivetheirreligiousobjectionsto \ immunizingG.M.,inviolationoftheirFirstAmendmentrightsto X religiousfreedom. Theyfurtherassertedthat_Nichols_Ԁdeliberately   disclosedunfavorableinformationfromMiller'smentalhealth |  recordsduringacourtorderedmedicalevaluationofG.M.,while ( x  withholdingmorefavorableinformation,inviolationof_HIPAA_.  $   ` OnJanuary9,2009,thefederaldistrictcourtofMaine   heldthatitlackedsubjectmatterjurisdictionoverplaintiffs' ,|  claimsforinjunctiveanddeclaratoryreliefunderthe_Rooker_Ԅ ( Feldmandoctrine.Millerv._Nichols_,No.2:08_cv_Ԅ355_GZS_,at68  (D.Me.Jan.9,2009).Itfurtherfoundthatplaintiffs'claims 0 fordamageswerebarredbythedoctrineofissuepreclusionand , that,inanyevent,plaintiffshadnoprivaterightofactionfor  _HIPAA_Ԁviolations.Id.at810&n.1.Accordingly,itgranted 4 defendants'motiontodismiss.Thisappealfollowed. 0   II.      ` Theexistenceoffederalsubjectmatterjurisdiction,of 8!" acauseofaction,andtheapplicabilityofresjudicata,inthe "4$ formofissuepreclusion,arequestionsoflaw,subjecttodenovo $& reviewinthiscourt.See_Amoche_v.Guar.TrustLifeIns.Co.,556 <&!( F.3d41,48(1stCir.2009)(subjectmatterjurisdiction);Andrew '8#* Robinson_Int'l_,Inc.v.HartfordFireIns.Co.,547F.3d48,51 )$, (1stCir.2008)(failuretostateaclaim);Global_NAPs_,Inc.v. @+&. Mass._Dep't_Ԁof_Telecomm_.,427F.3d34,43(1stCir.2005)(issue  preclusion).  \ L   (93"3"  3pP2  A  .3  0 `   _Rooker_ԄFeldmanPrecludesJurisdictionoverPlaintiffs' X MotionforInjunctiveRelief^P3pPP݌.` (#` (# Ќ   ` Thedistrictcourtcorrectlydeterminedthatitlacked   subjectmatterjurisdictiontoreviewplaintiffs'motionfor 6   injunctiverelieftopreventG.M.'sadoption. The_Rooker_ԄFeldman  2  doctrineprecludesfederaljurisdictionoverachallengetoastate   courtjudgmenttowhichthechallengerwasaparty. #  1      ׀SeeExxon :  MobilCorp.v.SaudiBasicIndus.Corp.,544U.S.280,284(2005); 6 PuertoRicansforP.R.Partyv._Dalmau_,544F.3d58,68(1stCir.  2008);seegenerallyWright,Miller&Cooper,supra,4469.1. > OnlytheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesmayinvalidatestate : courtciviljudgments.ExxonMobilCorp.,544U.S.at292.   ` Federalcourts'applicationofthe_Rooker_ԄFeldman B doctrine"doesnotdependonwhatissueswereactuallylitigatedin > thestatecourt."_^ #  2      _Ԁ_Maym;_Ԅ_Melndez_v._lvarez_Ԅ_Ramrez_,364F.3d27,  33(1stCir.2004).Rather,_Rooker_ԄFeldmanbarsjurisdiction  whenever"partieswholostinstatecourt...seek[]reviewand \ rejectionofthatjudgmentinfederalcourt."PuertoRicansFor X P.R.Party,544F.3dat68(internalquotationmarksomitted).    ` Here,plaintiffs'motionforinjunctivereliefisan `  efforttodoanendrunaroundthestatecourt'sjudgment.In  \  Maine,anorderterminatingparentalrightsexplicitlysevers   biologicalparents'righttoparticipateinadoptionproceedings. d  22_M.R.S.A._Ԁ4056(3).Thedesiredinjunctionwouldamounttoa `  reversaloftheMaineSupremeJudicialCourt'srulingonthe   terminationofplaintiffs'parentalrights,whichpermittedG.M.to h beadopted.Seeid.;seealso_Hoblock_,422F.3dat87 . d  Accordingly,thedistrictcourt'sdismissalofplaintiff'smotion , forlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionwasbothnecessaryand  appropriate.  4  "3"  3]2  B  .3  0 `   NoPrivateRightofActionunder_HIPAA_3]]݌0` (#` (# Ќ   ` Plaintiffsconcededbothbeforethedistrictcourtandon   thisappealthat_HIPAA_Ԁdoesnotcreateaprivaterightofaction. 8!" Thedistrictcourtproperlydismissedplaintiffs'claimsonthis "4$ basiswithoutadditionaldiscussion.Plaintiffs'argumentthatwe $& shoulddeviseanewcauseofactiontoaccommodatetheirclaimmust <&!( fail.SeeAlexanderv._Sandoval_,532U.S.275,287(2001)  ("Raisingupcausesofactionwhereastatutehasnotcreatedthem \ maybeaproperfunctionforcommon-lawcourts,butnotforfederal X tribunals.")(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted).     "3"  3b2  C  .3  0 `   TheFactualIssuesUnderlyingPlaintiffs'ClaimsWere `  AddressedbytheStateCourtandAreBarredbyIssue 6   Preclusiona3b