Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-12565
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:10-cv-01401-CEH-GJK
DEWEY MITCHELL LINDSAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ADOPTION BY SHEPHERD CARE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(January 7, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Dewey Mitchell Lindsay, proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Adoption by Shepherd Care, Inc., in his
action alleging constitutional violations arising from a state court parental rights
termination proceeding. We construe his arguments on appeal as a challenge to the
district court’s determination that Lindsay’s claim he was denied a right to counsel
in the state court proceeding, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due
process rights, was barred by the Rooker-Feldman 2 doctrine.
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Johnson v. Governor of
Fla., 405 F.3d 1214, 1217 (11th Cir. 2005). Whether a plaintiff’s complaint is
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a legal question that we review de novo.
Doe v. Fla. Bar, 630 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2011).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule that precludes lower
federal courts from reviewing state court judgments. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d
1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). The doctrine “precludes a United States district court
from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction in an action it would otherwise be
empowered to adjudicate.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544
U.S. 280, 291 (2005). “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine . . . is confined to cases of
the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court
1
Pro se pleadings are construed liberally. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262,
1263 (11th Cir. 1998).
2
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives from Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413
(1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
2
Case: 12-12565 Date Filed: 01/07/2014 Page: 3 of 3
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.” Id. at 284.
The district court did not err in determining the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
operated to bar Lindsay’s federal action. Lindsay’s continued insistence that his
federal case is actually an “appeal” of the state court parental rights termination
proceeding makes clear this is the type of case precluded by the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. As to his remaining claims, Lindsay offers no specific argument with
respect to the district court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim, his Fifth
and Sixth Amendment claims and challenge to the constitutionality of Chapter 63,
Florida Statutes, and accordingly has waived those challenges. See Greenbriar,
Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (explaining
issues not raised on appeal are deemed waived). Thus, we affirm the judgment of
the district court.
AFFIRMED.
3