Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01643/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01643-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

DLD-339 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1643

___________

ANTHONY STOCKER MINA,

 Appellant 

v.

DAWSON R. MUTH; GOLDBERG MEANIX 

MUTH & MCCALLIN LAW FIRM; 

JUDGE HOWARD RILEY; 

COURT REPORTER HANDY

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. 2-14-mc-00222)

District Court Judge: Honorable Edward G. Smith

____________________________________

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

September 17, 2015

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 29, 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.

Case: 15-1643 Document: 003112085621 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
2

Anthony Stocker Mina sought permission to file in forma pauperis a motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to overturn a state-court judgment dismissing his

civil action in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The District 

Court granted Mina’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and, pursuant to its screening 

obligations under 28 U.S.C. 1915A, denied the Rule 60 motion and dismissed the case. 

The District Court concluded that it could not overturn a state court’s judgment under

Rule 60(b), and that Mina’s requested relief was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

Mina appeals.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review 

over the District Court’s dismissal order. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d 

Cir. 2000). We may summarily affirm if the appeal presents no substantial questions. 

See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.

The District Court properly dismissed Mina’s Rule 60(b) motion seeking to set 

aside the state court’s judgment. As the District Court reasoned, a federal district court 

cannot overturn a state court judgment under Rule 60(b). Moreover, the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine bars Mina’s attempt invalidate the Court of Common Pleas’ judgment 

dismissing his case for failure to prosecute. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives 

federal district courts of jurisdiction “over suits that are essentially appeals from statecourt judgments.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 

159, 165 (3d Cir. 2010). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when four requirements 

are met: “(1) the federal plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff ‘complain[s] of 

Case: 15-1643 Document: 003112085621 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
3

injuries caused by [the] state-court judgments’; (3) those judgments were rendered before 

the federal suit was filed; and (4) the plaintiff is inviting the district court to review and 

reject the state judgments.” Id. at 166 (alterations in original) (quoting Exxon Mobil 

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005)). Mina’s claims satisfy 

these four requirements. Therefore the District Court correctly dismissed his case with 

prejudice. 

Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. 

Case: 15-1643 Document: 003112085621 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2015