Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0096-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony PARKER, Appellant v. LEHIGH COUNTY DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT
    No. 17-1737
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) August 16, 2017
    (Opinion filed: August 17, 2017)
    Anthony Parker, Pro Se
    Before: SHWARTZ, COWEN and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
   OPINION

PER CURIAM

In February 2017, Anthony Parker filed a civil rights complaint in the District Court against the Domestic Relations section of the Family Division of the Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas (“Family Court”). Parker claimed that the Family Court had violated his constitutional rights by dismissing his petition to modify his support order and seizing money from his bank account. Parker asked the District Court to order the Family Court to reopen the support proceedings so that he could lodge various objections. The District Court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) because, among other reasons, Parker’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Parker appealed.

We will affirm the District Court’s judgment. The District Court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to review, either directly or indirectly, the Family Court case. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284,125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005) (explaining that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars suits “brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments”). 
      
      
         This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
     
      
      . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court's sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000).