[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 20, 2006
No. 05-16599 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00416-CV-ORL-28-DAB
CHARLIE H. DAVIS,
LEYDA E. CHEW,
both individually and on behalf of
Lequindra Keion Davis (19) and
Chalise Davis (20),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
HON. GEORGE WINSLOW, JR.,
RICHARD S. GRAHAM,
BARBARA FANCHER JONES, Attorney,
KATHY A. JIMENEZ, Attorney,
ERIK K. NEITZKE, Attorney, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(July 20, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Davis and Leyda Chew, proceeding pro se, appeal the district court’s
dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Davis and Chew alleged that the
actions of which they complain were taken by the state-actor defendants in their
individual capacities. Davis and Chew asserted a variety of contractual,
constitutional, and civil rights statutory causes of action, including 42 U.S.C. §
1983 and asked for money damages, custody of Chew’s son, reinstatement of
Davis’s driver’s license, annulment of Chew’s divorce agreement with Harry Sperl,
punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and unspecified injunctive relief. Davis and
Chew made it clear in their arguments to the district court that they are challenging
the judgments against them in state court.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived the district court of subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear Davis and Chew’s claims. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine
establishes that federal courts, other than the Supreme Court, do not have subject-
matter jurisdiction over actions that effectively seek to appeal state court
judgments. Amos v. Glynn County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 347 F.3d 1249, 1265 n.11
(11th Cir. 2003); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S. Ct.
1303, 1315, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,
2
415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923). Davis and Chew allege nothing
to indicate that they were in any way deprived of the opportunity to raise their
issues in the state court proceedings. To the extent that Davis and Chew raise
issues that extend beyond a dissatisfaction with the outcome of their state court
cases, those issues were decided by the state courts or inextricably bound up in
those decisions.
AFFIRMED.
3