Lorenzo Watkins v. Warden, et al, No. 12-13968 (11th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-13968 Date Filed: 02/28/2013 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 12-13968 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-01528-LSC-TMP LORENZO WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WARDEN, LLOYD WALLACE, Captain, DERWIN HALBROOKS, Lieutenant, CORRECTION OFFICERS AT LIMESTONE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ________________________ (February 28, 2013) Case: 12-13968 Date Filed: 02/28/2013 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo Watkins, an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint against Warden Lloyd Wallace and other officers at the Limestone Correctional Facility. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Watkins s complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We affirm. The district court did not err by dismissing Watkins s complaint. Watkins s complaint is barred by res judicata. See Green v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm n, 563 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th Cir. 2009). An Alabama court earlier entered a summary judgment against Watkins s same complaint that the same defendants violated his constitutional rights, and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that judgment, Watkins v. Mitchem, 97 So. 3d 815 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). Watkins argues that res judicata does not bar his federal complaint, but under Alabama law [a] summary judgment acts as a judgment on the merits, Ex parte Jefferson Cnty., 656 So. 2d 382, 385 (Ala. 1995). The district court also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the judgment of the state court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S. Ct. 1517 (2005); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Watkins s complaint. 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.