George Wilson v. Selma Water Works and Sewer Bo


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant George Wilson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 12-12812 Date Filed: 06/24/2013 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-12812 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?