Anthony Mina v. Enet Advertising, et al

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 3. DLD-340

Case: 15-1644

Document: 003112085726

Page: 1

DLD-340

Date Filed: 09/29/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-1644
___________
ANTHONY STOCKER MINA,
Appellant
v.
ENET ADVERTISING; OPTIMA WEB DESIGN;
RON SHUR; NICKOLAI POTAPOV;
JUDGE JOHN L. BRAXTON
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. 2-14-mc-00254)
District Court Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith
____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
September 17, 2015
Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 29, 2015)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM

*

This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-1644

Document: 003112085726

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/29/2015

Anthony Stocker Mina sought permission to file in forma pauperis a motion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to set aside an order of the Court of Common Pleas
of Chester County, Pennsylvania, dismissing his state-court action. The District Court
granted Mina’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and, pursuant to its screening
obligations under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, denied the Rule 60 motion and dismissed the case.
The District Court reasoned that it could not overturn a state court’s judgment under Rule
60(b), and that the relief Mina requested was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Mina appeals.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review
over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d
Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial questions.
See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
The District Court properly dismissed Mina’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking to set
aside the state court’s judgment. As the District Court determined, a federal district court
cannot overturn a state court judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Moreover, the RookerFeldman doctrine bars Mina’s attempt invalidate the Court of Common Pleas’ judgment
dismissing his case. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of
jurisdiction “over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court judgments.” Great W.
Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when four requirements are met: “(1) the federal
2

Case: 15-1644

Document: 003112085726

Page: 3

Date Filed: 09/29/2015

plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff ‘complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] statecourt judgments’; (3) those judgments were rendered before the federal suit was filed;
and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and reject the state judgments.”
Id. at 166 (alterations in original) (quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.
Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Mina’s claims satisfy these four requirements.
Therefore the District Court correctly dismissed his case with prejudice.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court.

3