Glen Christian v. Cherylin Christian, No. 15-2215 (3d Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
CLD-048 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 15-2215 ___________ GLEN CHRISTIAN, Appellant v. CHERYLIN CHRISTIAN ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-14-cv-05899) District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 November 13, 2015 Before: FISHER, JORDAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges (Filed: November 18, 2015) _________ OPINION* _________ PER CURIAM * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Glen Christian appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which dismissed his complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Christian appeals pro se and, having granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we must determine whether this appeal is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). An appeal is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). There is no arguable basis to challenge the District Court’s order.1 As the District Court ably explained, through his District Court filing, Christian squarely and explicitly sought to overturn the New Jersey Supreme Court’s order entered against him years earlier. This is precisely the type of case that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to consider, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (federal courts precluded from exercising jurisdiction over case brought by state-court losers challenging the statecourt judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced). Christian has not alleged any error by the District Court, and we can discern no possible meritorious challenge to the District Court’s order. We will thus dismiss the appeal as frivolous. “We exercise plenary review over a district court’s order dismissing a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 759 F.3d 266, 271 (3d Cir. 2014). 1 2
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.
