Gloria J. Hoegh v. Emerson R. Thompson

Case: 13-12501 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-12501
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00367-CEH-DAB
GLORIA J. HOEGH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
EMERSON R. THOMPSON,
Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for Orange County, FL,
CYNTHIA Z. MACKINNON,
Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit for Orange County, FL,
WILLIAM D. PALMER,
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals,
VINCENT G. TORPY, JR.,
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals,
KERRY I. EVANDER,
Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals,
Defendants - Appellees.
Case: 13-12501 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 2 of 3
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 5, 2015)
Before WILSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gloria Hoegh brought a complaint in the United StatesDistrict Court for the
Middle District of Florida against a number of Florida state circuit and district
judges (Defendants), styled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hoegh sought review of
the conduct of a state court foreclosure action brought by Credit-Based Asset
Servicing and Securitization, LLC, expressly referencing a provision of the Florida
Constitution that she believes was violated by Defendants. The district court
dismissed the complaint after concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
under Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., which holds that a district court does not have
jurisdiction to review judgments of state courts of competent jurisdiction based on
purported constitutional violations. See 263 U.S. 413, 415–16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150
(1923).
We review dismissal of a complaint by the district court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction de novo. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States,
2
Case: 13-12501 Date Filed: 01/05/2015 Page: 3 of 3
EPA, 105 F.3d 599, 602 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court properly applied
Rooker and therefore did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
3