Odegard v. Alamana Investments, Inc. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
KIMBERLE C ODEGARD, Trustee of the 	)
Kimberle C. Odegard Revocable Living Trust, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 4:26-cv-00254-DGK
)
ALAMANA INVESTMENTS, INC., 	)
)
JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., 	)
)
BLUE SPRINGS POLICE DEPT., 	)
)
JOHN DOE, Civil Process Servers, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This lawsuit arises from an unlawful detainer case brought against pro se Plaintiff Kimberle
Odegard in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. The complaint makes wide-ranging
allegations about unlawful events leading to a Missouri court apparently authorizing her ejection
from her home: fraudulent records in the Jackson County Assessor’s office submitted by
Defendant Alaman Investments and its officers and attorneys, false reports made to—and acted
upon by—the Blue Springs Police Department about Plaintiff trespassing on the property,
destruction of law enforcement records, identity theft, etc., all stemming from Plaintiff’s removal
from her home, which the Missouri court system approved. The defendants are a list of entities or
individuals associated with the unlawful detainer case.
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepayment of Fees or Costs, ECF No. 1, and Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction Without Notice, ECF No. 3. 	Because the Court
Case 4:26-cv-00254-DGK Document 4 Filed 03/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
lacks subject matter jurisdiction (that is, legal power) to hear this dispute, the motions are
DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such may only hear cases they have
been authorized to hear by the Constitution or by statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 	Whenever it appears that a federal court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over a dispute, the court is obliged to dismiss the lawsuit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3);
see Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
The Court holds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. Plaintiff is attempting to sue in federal court to reverse the result in an unlawful
detainer case, an event authorized by a Missouri trial court and apparently affirmed on appeal by
a Missouri appellate court. 	Plaintiff contends these decisions were based upon fraud and were
illegal and unconstitutional. In other words, Plaintiff contends the Missouri state court system has
erred, and this federal district court should intervene to set the matter right.
The problem with this request is that federal jurisdiction to review state court judgments is
vested exclusively in the United States Supreme Court. Lemonds v. St. Louis Cnty, 222 F.3d 488,
492 (8th Cir. 2000). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that federal district courts, such as
this one, may not review state court decisions, “even if those challenges allege that the state court’s
action was unconstitutional.” Ballinger v. Culotta, 322 F.3d 546, 548 (8th Cir. 2003) (holding the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a lawsuit brought in federal district court alleging a state court
wrongly decided custody issues and unconstitutionally infringed on the plaintiff’s rights). 	This
doctrine forecloses both straightforward appeals from state court decisions and “also more indirect
attempts by federal plaintiffs to undermine state court decisions.” Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459,
463 (2006). 	It also prohibits lower federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over all “general
Case 4:26-cv-00254-DGK Document 4 Filed 03/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with claims already adjudicated in state
court.” Id. at 492-93. A general federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state judgment “if
the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before
it.” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25 (1987). That is, the doctrine bars claims where
the requested federal relief would void the state court’s judgment or essentially reverse the state
court’s holding. Ace Constr. v. City of St. Louis, 263 F.3d 831, 833 (8th Cir. 2001). In this case,
because this lawsuit can only succeed if the Missouri judicial system wrongly found Plaintiff did
not have a legal right to be in her home, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars this Court from hearing
this lawsuit.
Hence, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case, and so it must be
DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s pending motion for a temporary restraining order is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 	March 26, 2026 	/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 4:26-cv-00254-DGK Document 4 Filed 03/26/26 Page 3 of 3