UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________

No. 20-1813 ________________

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 ________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-19-cv-01342) District Judge: Honorable William S. Stickman, IV ________________

Argued on December 15, 2020 Before: AMBRO, BIBAS, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(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

2 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

________________

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

3 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 ca