Filed: Jul. 28, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT July 28, 2006 No. 05-16681 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 03-22306-CV-WMH EMERSON O. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREDERICK C. SAKE, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (July 28, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Emerson Davis, a fe
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED _ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT July 28, 2006 No. 05-16681 THOMAS K. KAHN Non-Argument Calendar CLERK _ D. C. Docket No. 03-22306-CV-WMH EMERSON O. DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREDERICK C. SAKE, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (July 28, 2006) Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Emerson Davis, a fed..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
July 28, 2006
No. 05-16681 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-22306-CV-WMH
EMERSON O. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FREDERICK C. SAKE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(July 28, 2006)
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Emerson Davis, a federal prison inmate, appeals the decision of the district
court denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion to vacate the
court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The
complaint seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against attorney Frederick Sake
on the ground that Sake breached his contract with Davis in conducting Davis’s
defense in a criminal case. The complaint stated that Davis brought the same claim
against Sake in state court, and that state court entered judgment dismissing the
claim.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires that we affirm the district court’s
decision. That doctrine holds that a federal district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to either review a state court decision or to hear a claim that is
“inextricably intertwined” with a state court’s final decision. See Rooker v.
Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413, 415-16,
44 S. Ct. 149, 150,
68 L. Ed. 362 (1923);
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 476-82,
103 S. Ct. 1303, 1311-
15,
75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983). Because the state court had rejected the breach of
contract claim Davis plead in his complaint, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred
the district court from entertaining that claim.
AFFIRMED.
2