Glenn Smith v. Angela Dempsey

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Glenn C. Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16522

Date Filed: 05/31/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16522
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:16-cv-00344-RH-CAS

GLENN C. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ANGELA C. DEMPSEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(May 31, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16522

Date Filed: 05/31/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Glenn Smith, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district
court’s sua sponte dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Smith’s complaint
asserts a claim for declaratory relief against Florida judge Angela Dempsey, who
dismissed his pro se state court action in 2015 based on a 2008 state court order
prohibiting him from proceeding pro se in future lawsuits. In his district court
complaint, Smith seeks a declaration that Judge Dempsey’s dismissal of his lawsuit
was erroneous because the 2008 state court order violated his constitutional right
of access to courts and cannot be enforced.
“We review de novo a district court’s decision that the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine deprives it of subject matter jurisdiction.” Doe v. Fla. Bar, 630 F.3d 1336,
1340 (11th Cir. 2011). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, derived from Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923), and District of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983), “is a
jurisdictional rule that precludes the lower federal courts from reviewing state
court judgments.” Alvarez v. Att’y Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir.
2012). The doctrine is confined 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.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).
2

Case: 16-16522

Date Filed: 05/31/2017

Page: 3 of 3

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to Smith’s claim and precludes the
district court (and our Court) from exercising jurisdiction over it. Smith is
effectively asking the district court to declare the 2008 order, which prohibited him
from filing lawsuits pro se, an unconstitutional restraint on his access to courts, and
to declare that Judge Dempsey’s 2015 dismissal of his lawsuit erroneously relied
on that unconstitutional 2008 court order. In other words, the claim Smith asserts
is brought by a state-court loser complaining about injuries caused by two statecourt judgments, and Smith seeks federal review and rejection of those orders. The
district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over that claim. As a result,
dismissal of Smith’s complaint was proper.
AFFIRMED.

3