Anthony Parker v. Lehigh Cty Domestic Relation
NOT PRECEDENTIAL PER CURIAM OPINION Coram: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges. Total Pages: 2.
Date Filed: 08/17/2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
LEHIGH COUNTY DOMESTIC
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 5-17-cv-00564)
District Judge: Honorable Mitchell S. Goldberg
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
August 16, 2017
Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: August 17, 2017)
In February 2017, Anthony Parker filed a civil rights complaint in the District
Court against the Domestic Relations section of the Family Division of the Lehigh
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Date Filed: 08/17/2017
County Court of Common Pleas (“Family Court”). Parker claimed that the Family Court
had violated his constitutional rights by dismissing his petition to modify his support
order and seizing money from his bank account. Parker asked the District Court to order
the Family Court to reopen the support proceedings so that he could lodge various
objections. The District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e) because, among other reasons, Parker’s claims were barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. Parker appealed.1
We will affirm the District Court’s judgment. The District Court lacked
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review, either directly or indirectly,
the Family Court case. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S.
280, 284 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits “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”).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over
the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). See Allah v.
Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).
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?