Glen Christian v. Cherylin Christian

Filing

NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2. CLD-048

Case: 15-2215

Document: 003112132619

Page: 1

CLD-048

Date Filed: 11/18/2015

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 15-2215
___________
GLEN CHRISTIAN,
Appellant
v.
CHERYLIN CHRISTIAN
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-05899)
District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
____________________________________

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
November 13, 2015
Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 18, 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: 15-2215

Document: 003112132619

Page: 2

Date Filed: 11/18/2015

Glen Christian appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, which dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Christian
appeals pro se and, having granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must
determine whether this appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal
is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). There is no arguable basis to challenge the District
Court’s order.1
As the District Court ably explained, through his District Court filing, Christian
squarely and explicitly sought to overturn the New Jersey Supreme Court’s order entered
against him years earlier. This is precisely the type of case that a federal court lacks
jurisdiction to consider, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil
Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (federal courts precluded
from exercising jurisdiction over case brought by state-court losers challenging the statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced). Christian
has not alleged any error by the District Court, and we can discern no possible
meritorious challenge to the District Court’s order.
We will thus dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

“We exercise plenary review over a district court’s order dismissing a complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 759 F.3d
266, 271 (3d Cir. 2014).
1

2