Renee Bell v. Lisa Sykes ( 2017 )

Case: 15-15568 Date Filed: 03/13/2017 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15568
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cv-01588-PGB-GJK
RENEE BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LISA SYKES,
Representative U.S. Bank,
DOUGLAS C. ZAHM,
DIANNE GRANT,
JANET THORPE,
U.S. BANK NATIONAL/LEADER MORTGAGE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 13, 2017)
Before HULL, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Case: 15-15568 Date Filed: 03/13/2017 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Renee Bell, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the district
court’s sua sponte dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine of her 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 civil rights complaint.
We review “dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo.”
Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). A court must dismiss an
action if it “determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). We also review de novo the district court’s application of
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 713 F.3d
1066, 1069-70 (11th Cir. 2013). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent
standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally
construed.” Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
Although we show leniency to pro se litigants, we will not rewrite a deficient
pleading in order to sustain an action. Campbell v. Air Jamaica Ltd., 760 F.3d
1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the
district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and
rejection of those judgments.” Nicholson, 558 F.3d at 1273 (quotation omitted);
1
See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-82 (1983).
2
Case: 15-15568 Date Filed: 03/13/2017 Page: 3 of 4
see Exxon Mobil Co. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). It
applies when issues presented to the district court are “inextricably intertwined
with the state court judgment.” Alvarez v. Att’y Gen., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th
Cir. 2012). An issue is “inextricably intertwined” with the state court judgment
when “(1) the success of the federal claim would effectively nullify the state court
judgment” or “(2) the federal claim would succeed only to the extent that the state
court wrongly decided the issues.” Id. at 1262-63 (quotations omitted). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine only precludes federal court review of federal claims
that the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to raise in an earlier state
proceeding. See Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009).
Bell filed a complaint essentially seeking appellate review of a state
foreclosure judgment that went against her. Bell is the type of state-court losing
party that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine covers. See Nicholson, 558 F.3d at 1273.
Bell’s complaint is not a distinct federal action and she makes no argument
indicating that she did not have a reasonable opportunity to raise her constitutional
claims at an earlier state proceeding. Her complaint is an attempt to gain appellate
review from the federal district court of a final state judgment. See Nicholson, 558
F.3d at 1270. Any success by Bell would require a holding that the state court was
wrong and would nullify the state judgment. See Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 1262.
Therefore, the federal district court had no jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
3
Case: 15-15568 Date Filed: 03/13/2017 Page: 4 of 4
doctrine. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
4