Case: 19-10942 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-10942
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cv-01420-BJD-JBT
MARGUERITE SMITH,
widow,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
MARK H. MAHON,
in his individual capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 9, 2019)
Case: 19-10942 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 2 of 3
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Mark H. Mahon, Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, issued
an administrative order declaring Marguerite Smith a “vexatious litigant” and
barring her from filing any more pro se suits in the jurisdiction. Rather than appeal
the order in state court, Smith filed a pro se complaint in the Middle District of
Florida alleging that Chief Judge Mahon violated her Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights by denying her the opportunity to contest the administrative
order. 1 The district court, on its own motion, dismissed Smith’s complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Smith appeals
contending that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction. 2
We review de novo a court’s finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review
state court final judgments. Id. (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
1
Smith named Chief Judge Mahon and Jay B. Watson in her initial complaint. But she
did not separate her claims into different counts, nor did she specify which claims applied to
which defendants. The district court struck the complaint but allowed Smith to file an amended
complaint. Smith’s amended complaint contains only one claim against Chief Judge Mahon and
does not include any claims against Watson.
2
Smith moved to strike Chief Judge Mahon’s appellee response brief as untimely and
moved for entry of default judgment. But Chief Judge Mahon’s brief was timely. He received
an extension to file his brief by July 5, 2019, and filed his brief on July 2, 2019. Smith’s motion
to strike and for default judgment is DENIED.
2
Case: 19-10942 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 3 of 3
462, 482 (1983)). The losing party in state court must instead appeal to a state
appellate court or, as a last resort, to the United States Supreme Court. Id. The
doctrine applies to claims that are “‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s
judgment.” Id. (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n. 16). A claim is inextricably
intertwined if it would “effectively overrule” the state court’s judgment. Id. The
doctrine does not apply “where a party did not have a reasonable opportunity to
raise his federal claim in state proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here. Smith asked the district court to
review and overrule the state court order. Smith’s claim is thus inextricably
intertwined with the state court judgment. See Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260. And
despite her classification as a vexatious litigant, Smith could still have raised her
claim in state court if she complied with the administrative order. The district
court properly dismissed Smith’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.
3