YASHAYAHU v. RICHARDSON et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
ZAKIYAH RUFFIN YASHAYAHU,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 4:25-cv-471-AW-MAF
ASHENAFI N. RICHARDSON and
JENNIFER WINEGARDNER,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Pro se Plaintiff Zakiyah Ruffin Yashayahu contends she was wrongly evicted.
She sued the state-court judge who presided over the eviction (Richardson) and the
property owner’s lawyer (Winegardner) under § 1983. ECF No. 16. She claims that
Richardson ignored filings and that Winegardner lied to the court. As relief,
Yashayahu seeks reinstatement of her access to the property and money damages.
After screening the complaint, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation, ECF No. 30, recommending dismissal under Rooker-Feldman.1
Plaintiff filed objections (ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40). After careful consideration,
including a de novo review of issues raised in Plaintiff’s objections, I reject the report
and recommendation in part but conclude dismissal is appropriate.
1 Rooker-Feldman refers to a doctrine based on Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462 (1983).
Case 4:25-cv-00471-AW-MAF Document 41 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 4

2
Wholesale dismissal under Rooker-Feldman is inappropriate. The issue
requires a claim-by-claim analysis, which the magistrate judge did not undertake.
The question “isn’t whether the whole complaint seems to challenge a previous state
court judgment, but whether resolution of each individual claim requires review and
rejection of a state court judgment.” Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1213 (11th Cir.
2021) (requiring “claim-by-claim” analysis under Rooker-Feldman). Courts must
assess “whether the substance” of a claim “requires a district court to ‘review’ and
‘reject’ a state court judgment.” Efron v. Candelario, 110 F.4th 1229, 1238 (11th
Cir. 2024) (concluding plaintiff’s claim for damages—equal to the amount awarded
in the underlying action—would “negate” the underlying court’s order). So I will
assess Yashayahu’s claims individually. Those claims, which are not particularly
clear, generally assert Richardson and Winegardner violated Yashayahu’s due
process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. As relief, Yashayahu seeks
reinstatement of the property and $1 million in damages. ECF No. 16 at 6.
I conclude the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Yashayahu’s claims
for reinstatement against both Winegardner and Richardson. First, because
reinstatement negates eviction, Yashayahu’s claim for reinstatement amounts to “a
direct attack on the underlying state court decision” on eviction, Behr, 8 F.4th at
1210. Second, Yashayahu lacks Article III standing to seek reinstatement against
Richardson and Winegardner because neither of them owns or controls the property.
Case 4:25-cv-00471-AW-MAF Document 41 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 4

3
See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (explaining that
redressability is an element of Article III standing).
Yashayahu’s claim for damages against Winegardner and Richardson is
different. Awarding Yashayahu damages would not “negate” or undo the eviction
order; she would remain evicted from the property. Behr, 8 F.4th at 1213 (noting
that claim for money damages would not undo child custody judgment, so it fell
outside Rooker-Feldman). And there is not an Article III standing issue because
money damages would redress the purported injury. So there is not a jurisdictional
issue.
Nonetheless, dismissal is still appropriate because Yashayahu has not pleaded
any plausible claim for relief. Judicial immunity applies to claims against
Richardson. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359 (1978) (“A judge is
absolutely immune from liability for his judicial acts even if his exercise of authority
is flawed by the commission of grave procedural errors.”). Yashayahu has not
pleaded that the judge acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Id. at 357. As
to Winegardner—a private attorney—Yashayahu has pleaded no facts to support the
state-actor element for a § 1983 claim. See Harvey v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130-
33 (11th Cir. 1992) (noting the “rare circumstances” a private party can be viewed
as a state actor and describing the demanding standard applicable to each).
Case 4:25-cv-00471-AW-MAF Document 41 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 4

4
In short, all claims are subject to dismissal—some for lack of jurisdiction and
some on the merits. The report and recommendation (ECF No. 30) is adopted to the
extent consistent with the above. It is otherwise rejected.
The clerk will enter a judgment that says, “Yashayahu’s claim for
reinstatement against Richardson and Winegardner is dismissed without prejudice
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Yashayahu’s claim for money damages
against Richardson and Winegardner is dismissed on the merits for failure to state a
claim.” The clerk will then close the file.
SO ORDERED on December 22, 2025.
s/ Allen Winsor
Chief United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-00471-AW-MAF Document 41 Filed 12/22/25 Page 4 of 4