Rafael Alberto Llovera Linares v. Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc., No. 14-12288 (11th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-12288 Date Filed: 01/28/2015 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-12288 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 0:13-cv-61222-KAM RAFAEL ALBERTO LLOVERA LINARES, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 28, 2015) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. Case: 14-12288 Date Filed: 01/28/2015 Page: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Rafael Linares, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of his complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. * We review a district court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine de novo. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 (11th Cir. 2013). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review, reverse, or invalidate a final state court decision. Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2009). The doctrine applies to cases in which a party complains of injuries caused by a state court judgment and invites the district court to review and reverse that judgment. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1521-22, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). If at any time the district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3). Here, Linares sought to have the district court review the state court’s judgment and send the case back to state court. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction either to review * The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives from Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). 2 Case: 14-12288 Date Filed: 01/28/2015 Page: 3 of 3 the state court judgment or to grant the requested relief. The district court did not err by dismissing the case sua sponte. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(h)(3). AFFIRMED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
