Case ID: f-appx_589/html/0515-01.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

Gloria J. HOEGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emerson R. THOMPSON, Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit Court for Orange County, FL, Cynthia Z. Mackinnon, Judge, Ninth Judicial Circuit for Orange County, FL, William D. Palmer, Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals, Vincent G. Torpy, Jr., Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals, Kerry I. Evander, Judge, Fifth District Court of Appeals, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-12501
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Jan. 5, 2015.
    Gloria J. Hoegh, Orlando, FL, pro se.
    Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Daytona Beach, FL, William Eugene Gan-dy, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
    Before WILSON, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Gloria Hoegh brought a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against a number of Florida state circuit and district judges (Defendants), styled as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hoegh sought review of the conduct of a state court foreclosure action brought by Credit-Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, LLC, expressly referencing a provision of the Florida Constitution that she believes was violated by Defendants. The district court dismissed the complaint after concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., which holds that a district court does not have jurisdiction to review judgments of state courts of competent jurisdiction based on purported constitutional violations. See 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).

We review dismissal of a complaint by the district court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. United States, EPA, 105 F.3d 599, 602 (11th Cir.1997). The district court properly applied Rooker and therefore did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal.

AFFIRMED.