Margaret Jackson, et al v. Sheri Blevins, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 4, 2011
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-11001
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:10-cv-00215-HLM
MARGARET JACKSON,
TERRY AUSTIN,
as executors of the Silas Austin Sr. Estate
and in their capacity as sole owners of the 50%
undivided interest formerly owned by the interstate
decedent Katie Austin and as sole heir/heirs at
law to Katie Austin,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
SHERI BLEVINS,
individually and in her capacity as
Whitfield County Probate Judge.,
LINDA WHITE,
SAMANTHA SPLAWN,
individually and in their capacity as
Whitfield County Probate Court Clerks
10CI1504-m,
JON BOLLING WOODS,
Superior Court, Lookout Mountain Judicial District,
Lafayette, Georgia,
SUSAN BISSON, et al.,
JOHN MCCOWN, et al.,

-- 1 of 4 --

CURTIS KLEEM, et al.,
STEPHEN KELEHEAR, et al.,
09CI-313-J,
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 4, 2011)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Margaret Jackson and Terry Austin, proceeding pro se, appeal the district1
court’s dismissal of their action to appeal a state court dismissal for failure to state
a claim. Appellants’ brief on appeal makes only a passing reference to the reasons
for the district court’s dismissal, namely the lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
preclusion by res judicata, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. After review, we
"Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by1
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed." Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.2
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts and courts of
appeal lack subject matter jurisdiction “over certain matters related to previous
state court litigation.” See Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327,
1332 (11th Cir. 2001). The doctrine applies in “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.,125
S. Ct. 1517, 1521–22 (2005).
Appellants instituted this action in the federal district court as a “Notice of
Appeal” of the state court’s order and sought to have the district court review and
reverse the state court’s order dismissing the case. There was no basis for either
federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine prevented the district court from exercising subject matter
jurisdiction over Appellants’ claims because they were the “state-court losers
complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the
We review de novo a district court’s determination that Rooker-Feldman deprives it of2
subject matter jurisdiction. Doe v. Florida Bar, 630 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2011).
3

-- 3 of 4 --

district court proceedings commenced[,] and inviting district court review and
rejection of those judgments.” Saudi Basic Indus.,125 S. Ct. at 1521–22. The
district court did not err in dismissing Appellants’ case for lack of jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --