[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 08-10604 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 29, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar
THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00486-CV-CB
GARY BELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PHIL PERKINS,
PHILIP MASON,
STEVE BRADLEY,
LAMAR JOHNSON,
AIMEE MOORE,
JACKIE GARRICK, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(December 29, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gary Bell, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1985 action. Bell was the losing party in a child
support and a civil assault proceeding in Alabama state courts, and he has sued the
appellees for alleged civil rights violations that occurred in connection with these
proceedings. The district court dismissed Bell’s complaint on a number of
grounds, but did not address its subject-matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that
follow, we vacate and remand.
We are obligated to “inquire into subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte
whenever it may be lacking.” Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1179 (11th Cir.
2004) (quotation marks omitted). We review questions of subject-matter
jurisdiction de novo. Goodman ex. rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1331
(11th Cir. 2001).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district and appellate courts
lack subject matter jurisdiction to review the final judgment of a state court.
Goodman, 259 F.3d at 1332. The prohibition extends beyond claims actually
adjudicated by the state court to include claims that are “inextricably intertwined”
with a state court judgment. Id. A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a
2
state court judgment if “the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state
court wrongly decided the issues before it.” Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172
(11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not
restrict federal subject-matter jurisdiction when a party did not have a “reasonable
opportunity to raise [the] federal claims in state proceedings.” Goodman, 259 F.3d
at 1332. Moreover, the doctrine only applies in instances in which “state-court
losers” brought actions concerning the state court judgment in federal court.
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).
Here, neither the district court nor the parties considered whether Rooker-
Feldman barred any of Bell’s claims. Based on the record, it appears that the
district court lacked jurisdiction over some, if not all, of the claims. See Goodman,
259 F.3d at 1334-1335 (addressing similar claims). Where the record is
incomplete with respect to the jurisdictional question, however, the proper
disposition is to remand to the district court for factual consideration. See Leonard
v. Enter. Rent a Car, 279 F.3d 967, 972 (11th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, we remand
this case back to the district court to consider its subject-matter jurisdiction.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3