George Wilson v. Selma Water Works and Sewer Board , 522 F. App'x 634 ( 2013 )

Case: 12-12812 Date Filed: 06/24/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12812
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:11-cv-00479-B-B
GEORGE WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SELMA WATER WORKS AND SEWER BOARD,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(June 24, 2013)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12812 Date Filed: 06/24/2013 Page: 2 of 3
George Wilson appeals the dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant to the
Rooker-Feldman 1 doctrine. We affirm. 2
In 2009, Wilson sued Selma Water Works and Sewer Board (Selma Board)
in Alabama state court for allegedly damaging his building. The trial court
awarded Selma Board summary judgment and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
affirmed. On August 5, 2011, the Alabama Supreme Court denied Wilson’s
petition for writ of certiorari, thereby ending the state-court proceedings. On
August 19, 2011, Wilson filed this case in federal district court alleging violations
of his federal due process rights based on (1) Selma Board’s discovery and
pleading tactics in state court, and (2) the state-court trial judge’s failure to recuse
himself. According to Wilson’s Second Amended Complaint, he “seeks relief
from summary judgment of Alabama Courts” notwithstanding the verdict of those
courts. Wilson’s claims were subsequently dismissed by a federal magistrate judge
after the parties consented to the magistrate’s jurisdiction.
Wilson’s claims are jurisdictionally barred under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284,
1
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923).
2
We review the magistrate judge’s dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in this
case de novo. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). Also, we deny
Appellee’s motion to sanction Wilson under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and Fed. R. App. P. 38. See, e.g.,
Woods v. Internal Revenue Serv., 3 F.3d 403, 404 (11th Cir. 1993) (noting this Court’s
reluctance to sanction pro se litigants).
2
Case: 12-12812 Date Filed: 06/24/2013 Page: 3 of 3
125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521–22 (2005). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars state-court
losers from seeking what would be, in substance, appellate review of state-court
judgments in federal district court based on claims that the state-court judgment
violated the losing parties’ federal rights. See Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Co., 611 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2010); see also Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d
1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding Rooker-Feldman also bars federal claims
raised in state court as well as claims that are inextricably intertwined with the
state-court judgment). Because that is precisely what Wilson seeks to do in this
case, his claims are jurisdictionally barred.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s dismissal is AFFIRMED.
3