Jeanne Roberson, Lauren Hellman, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Manitou Springs, City Of, Named: City of Manitou Springs,inc., a Colorado Municipal Corporation; Alan Jensen; Johne. Humphrey; Michael J. Leslie; Jeffrey Nohr; Mary Josmith; Debbie Makon; Betty Tatum; Officer Herst; Walt'stowing; Gilbert Martinez; and Does I Through Xx,defendants-appellees, 51 F.3d 286 (10th Cir. 1995)

Plaintiffs Jeanne Roberson and Lauren Hellman, proceeding pro se, appeal from orders of the district court dismissing various defendants and from judgment entered in favor of the remaining defendants following a trial to the court. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291 and affirm.

The parties are familiar with the facts and we will not repeat them here. Plaintiffs' complaint sought a declaratory judgment affirming their right to various vehicles, the return of those vehicles which defendants had seized pursuant to court order, damages, and costs.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue the federal district court committed reversible error in (1) dismissing defendant Judge Gilbert Martinez; (2) failing to properly "apply status of Citizenship of Harald Anton Hellman in its rulings," appellants' opening br. at C.; (3) requiring a Colorado certificate of title as a condition for return of plaintiffs' vehicles; (4) holding that plaintiffs had adequate state post-deprivation remedies; and (5) determining defendants had not violated plaintiffs' due process rights because Judge Martinez had issued a valid court order. Plaintiffs also argue defendants did not obey Judge Martinez' order and the use of a zip code is "jurisdictional and not mandatory." Id. at G.

Plaintiffs argue the federal district court erroneously dismissed Colorado State District Court Judge Martinez from the complaint. While plaintiffs agree Judge Martinez has absolute immunity from a suit for damages, plaintiffs argue they were suing for declaratory and injunctive relief. It appears plaintiffs challenge the correctness of Judge Martinez' order authorizing the seizure of vehicles plaintiffs alleged they owned which were located on property not belonging to either plaintiff. Neither the federal district court nor this court has jurisdiction over a plaintiff's direct challenge to a state court's judgment, even if those acts are alleged to be unconstitutional. See Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 (10th Cir. 1986). The district court had no jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment regarding the correctness of the state court's judgment.

We have reviewed all of plaintiffs' remaining arguments and determine the trial court has not committed reversible error. Defendants Walt's Towing and City of Manitou Springs' requests for costs and fees pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 38 are denied.

Seeing no reversible error, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall enter forthwith.