DocketNumber: Docket No. 02-7982
Citation Numbers: 63 F. App'x 532
Judges: Goldberg, McLaughlin, Parker
Filed Date: 4/11/2003
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
SUMMARY ORDER
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff David Holland appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Gershon, Judge), dismissing his complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Holland’s complaint alleged that, during his contested divorce suit in New York Supreme Court, State “agents, servants and personnel” denied him his civil rights, obstructed justice, and violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and access to the court. In particular, Holland complained that the Supreme Court denied him a preliminary conference, discovery, equitable distribution of property, and his ultimate claims of relief. He also alleged that the court permitted the defendant to file false orders and documents and that the official transcript was missing. The complaint requested monetary damages.
The State moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6), arguing that the Eleventh Amendment and the Rooker-Feldman
We find no error in the District Court’s jurisdictional analysis. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction “over cases that effectively seek review of judgments of state courts.” Moccio v. New York State Office of Court Admin., 95 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir.1996). It is clear that Holland’s complaint effectively seeks review of the New York Supreme Court’s judgment in his matrimonial action. He takes issue
The judgment of the District Court is hereby affirmed.
. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
. Because we affirm the District Court’s judgment on jurisdictional grounds, we need not reach the other issues raised in this appeal.