RENNER v. SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA et al
Filing
22
ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The clerk must enter judgment stating, "This case is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted." The clerk must close the file. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 7/24/2018. (vkm)
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
SHERRI L. RENNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 4:17cv451-RH/CAS
THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA,
and THE FLORIDA BAR,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This case is before the court on the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, ECF No. 20, and the defendants’ objections, ECF No. 21. The
plaintiff has not filed objections and has not responded to the defendants’
objections.
The report and recommendation correctly concludes that the complaint
should be dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. This
order accepts the report and recommendation and adopts it as the court’s opinion,
with this additional explanation.
Case No. 4:17cv451-RH/CAS
Page 2 of 4
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts cannot hear
“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.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v.
Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). See also Rooker v. Fidelity
Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983).
In this action the plaintiff asserts that a Florida Supreme Court ruling
announced before the plaintiff filed this case violated the plaintiff’s federal rights.
But under Florida law, and as explicitly stated when the Florida Supreme Court
issued its opinion, the ruling was not final until the time to petition for rehearing
expired or any petition for rehearing was resolved. The plaintiff filed in the Florida
Supreme Court, on the same day she filed this federal case, a timely petition for
rehearing. The plaintiff says the state-court judgment thus was not “rendered”
before she filed this action.
The plaintiff withdrew the rehearing petition 11 days after she filed it. The
defendants say this rendered the petition a nullity—that the case should be treated
as if the petition was never filed. In support of this assertion, the defendants cite a
federal case involving a different issue, not a Rooker-Feldman case. See
Vanderwerf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 603 F.3d 842, 845 (10th Cir. 2010)
Case No. 4:17cv451-RH/CAS
Page 3 of 4
(holding that a withdrawn motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e)
does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal). Whether the Eleventh Circuit
would follow Vanderwerf on the 59(e) issue may be unclear, but either way,
Vanderwerf does not resolve the Rooker-Feldman issue in this case. This case
deals with the finality of a Florida Supreme Court decision, not the finality of a
federal district court decision.
If writing on a clean slate, I might well hold that Rooker-Feldman bars this
action. At least in practical effect, this is a state-court loser’s complaint of injuries
caused by the state-court ruling. There is much to be said for the view that any
challenge to the state-court decision should be pursued by a petition for a writ of
certiorari in the United States Supreme Court—the court with authority to review
Florida Supreme Court decisions in civil cases—not by an original action in a
federal district court.
But alas, the slate is not clean. In Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1275
(11th Cir. 2009), the Eleventh Circuit said that for Rooker-Felman purposes, a
state-court ruling is final when, among other things, “the state action has reached a
point where neither party seeks further action.” Nicholson held that a judgment was
not final because of a pending appeal, not a pending rehearing petition. But the
court’s language left little room for any contention that this distinction would make
a difference. And the court’s language left little room for any contention that later
Case No. 4:17cv451-RH/CAS
Page 4 of 4
developments—such as the withdrawal of a petition 11 days later—would
retroactively change the analysis.
In short, the Nicholson test is whether a state ruling “has reached a point
where neither party seeks further action.” That test is not met here. When the
plaintiff filed this federal action, and for 11 more days, she was still seeking relief
in the Florida Supreme Court. Under the Nicholson formulation, the Florida
Supreme Court’s ruling was not final. Rooker-Feldman did not apply.
A contrary ruling would not change the result, only the explanation. As the
report and recommendation correctly concludes, the complaint fails to state a claim
on which relief can be granted. This order dismisses the action on that basis.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted as the court’s
further opinion. The clerk must enter judgment stating, “This case is dismissed for
failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” The clerk must close the
file.
SO ORDERED on July 24, 2018.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case No. 4:17cv451-RH/CAS
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?