FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
January 23, 2018
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 17-3177
AHMED MOHAMMED- (D.C. No. 5:03-CR-40100-SAC-4)
ABDULLAH-OMAR AL-HAJ, (D. Kan.)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. **
To make a long story short, Defendant Al-Haj filed a motion pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60 asking the federal district court in Kansas to hold “void” a Kansas state
forfeiture proceeding that was resolved against him in 2006. Specifically, Defendant
sought the return of $4,453 in cash and a 1998 Chevy Tahoe. The district court
denied Defendant’s motion on the merits and Defendant appealed. We exercise
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Now before the Court is the Government’s
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however,
for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
**
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction on the basis of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C.
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine applies to “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., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Such cases overlook the fact that appellate
jurisdiction over state court judgments rests, via 28 U.S.C. § 1257, in the Supreme
Court alone. Defendant here litigated and lost in state court. His Rule 60 motion
essentially invited the district court, a federal court of first instance, to review and
reverse an unfavorable state court judgment. Accordingly, the district court should
have dismissed Defendant’s motion for want of jurisdiction. While we DENY the
Government’s motion to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction, we VACATE
the decision of the district court and REMAND to the district court with instructions
to dismiss Defendant’s motion for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Exxon Mobil,
544 U.S. at 283–84.
Entered for the Court
Bobby R. Baldock
United States Circuit Judge
2