Case: 14-12288 Date Filed: 01/28/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-12288
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61222-KAM
RAFAEL ALBERTO LLOVERA LINARES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 28, 2015)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 14-12288 Date Filed: 01/28/2015 Page: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Rafael Linares, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. *
We review a district court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine de
novo. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (11th Cir. 2013).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject matter
jurisdiction to review, reverse, or invalidate a final state court decision. Nicholson
v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009). The doctrine applies to cases in
which a party complains of injuries caused by a state court judgment and invites
the district court to review and reverse that judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454
(2005). If at any time the district court determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3).
Here, Linares sought to have the district court review the state court’s
judgment and send the case back to state court. Under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction either to review
*
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: 14-12288 Date Filed: 01/28/2015 Page: 3 of 3
the state court judgment or to grant the requested relief. The district court did not
err by dismissing the case sua sponte. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3).
AFFIRMED.
3