Case: 13-11790 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11790
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-10092-JEM
KRIS HELTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICK RAMSAY,
in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Monroe County, Florida,
CATHERINE VOGEL,
in her official
capacity as the State Attorney for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit,
in and for Monroe County, Florida,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 20, 2014)
Case: 13-11790 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 2 of 6
Before PRYOR, KRAVITCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Kris Helton, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, and its subsequent denial
of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the
judgment. The district court dismissed all Helton’s claims as barred by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 1 Helton argues on appeal that his § 1983 action is not
barred by Rooker-Feldman because he is challenging Florida state officials’ refusal
to release evidence for post-conviction DNA testing, not the state courts’ denial of
the same relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. He asserts that
the district court should have reached the merits of his claim and held that the
officials violated his First Amendment right to petition, Sixth Amendment
Confrontation and Compulsory Process Clause rights, the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and his Fourteenth Amendment
procedural due process guarantee. He also argues that the court abused its
discretion by denying his Rule 59(e) motion, because the underlying judgment was
based on manifest errors of law and fact.
For ease of reference, we address each of Helton’s arguments in turn.
1
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44
S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct.
1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).
2
Case: 13-11790 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 3 of 6
I.
We review questions of jurisdiction de novo. Ehlen Floor Covering, Inc. v.
Lamb, 660 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2011). “We may affirm the district court's
judgment on any ground that appears in the record, whether or not that ground was
relied upon or even considered by the court below.” Thomas v. Cooper Lighting,
Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, when a state court judgment was issued
prior to the commencement of a federal action, the district court lacks jurisdiction
to review complaints seeking district court review and reversal of the state court
judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125
S.Ct. 1517, 1521–22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). Rooker-Feldman applies because,
among the federal courts, Congress authorized only the Supreme Court to reverse
or modify a state court decision. Id. at 284, 125 S.Ct. at 1522.
We determined the Rooker-Feldman doctrine’s applicability to the field of
post-conviction DNA testing in Alvarez v. Attorney General for Florida. 679 F.3d
1257 (11th Cir. 2012). In that case, we held that a plaintiff proceeding under
§ 1983, who has unsuccessfully sought DNA testing in state court, is barred from
lodging a claim that state officials violated his right to procedural due process by
denying testing. Id. at 1260, 1262. Such a claim is an as-applied challenge
3
Case: 13-11790 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 4 of 6
inviting federal court review and reversal of a state court judgment, and is
therefore prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. at 1263-64.
We then decided Alvarez’s remaining § 1983 claims on the merits. Id. at
1265-67. Specifically, he argued that the state’s denial of DNA testing violated the
Sixth and Eighth Amendments, and his right to access the courts under the
Fourteenth Amendment. We exercised subject matter jurisdiction over these
claims, but concluded that all three should be dismissed because the arguments
were foreclosed by precedent. Id.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Helton’s procedural due process claim.
Id. at 1263-64. Helton alleged that the Florida officials erred in denying DNA
testing under the standard set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.
By framing his claim as an as-applied challenge to the application of the state’s
post-conviction DNA testing procedure to the facts of his case, he invited federal
court review and reversal of a state court decision. Because this is the same
argument presented in Alvarez, we apply its holding and conclude that the district
court properly dismissed Helton’s procedural due process claim under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. Id.
The district court did not err in dismissing Helton’s remaining claims, either;
however, we affirm their dismissal on alternate grounds. Thomas, 506 F.3d at
1364. Helton’s Sixth and Eighth Amendment claims and access-to-the-courts
4
Case: 13-11790 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 5 of 6
argument are nearly identical to those we addressed on the merits in Alvarez. Id. at
1265-67. Accordingly, while Helton’s claims were therefore not barred by
Rooker-Feldman, they were foreclosed by our precedent and could not afford
relief. Id.
II.
We review the denial of a Rule 59(e) motion for abuse of discretion. Mincey
v. Head, 206 F.3d 1106, 1137 & n.69 (11th Cir. 2000). A Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e) motion should be granted only when there is newly discovered
evidence or manifest errors of law or fact in the initial ruling. Jacobs v. Tempur-
Pedic Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010). Asking the district court to
re-examine an unfavorable ruling is not the purpose of Rule 59(e). Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Helton’s motion
because he failed to show any manifest errors or newly discovered evidence. Id.
In his motion, Helton argued that his § 1983 action was dismissed in error, but
Rooker-Feldman precluded his procedural due process claim, and our precedent
foreclosed his remaining arguments. Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 1263-67. Furthermore,
because Helton’s assertions in support of his motion were nearly identical to those
he made against the magistrate’s report, which the court adopted, he was asking the
court to re-examine its initial ruling, which it will not do pursuant to a Rule 59(e)
motion. Jacobs, 636 F.3d at 1344.
5
Case: 13-11790 Date Filed: 05/20/2014 Page: 6 of 6
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Helton’s motion and its
dismissal of the § 1983 action.
AFFIRMED.
6