Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01644/USCOURTS-ca3-15-01644-0/pdf.json

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

---

DLD-340 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1644

___________

ANTHONY STOCKER MINA,

 Appellant

v.

ENET ADVERTISING; OPTIMA WEB DESIGN; 

RON SHUR; NICKOLAI POTAPOV; 

JUDGE JOHN L. BRAXTON

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(E.D. Pa. 2-14-mc-00254)

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: 15-1644 Document: 003112085726 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 set aside an order of the Court of Common Pleas 

of Chester County, Pennsylvania, dismissing his state-court action. 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 reasoned that it could not overturn a state court’s judgment under Rule 

60(b), and that the relief Mina requested 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 determined, a federal district court 

cannot overturn a state court judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Moreover, the RookerFeldman doctrine bars Mina’s attempt invalidate the Court of Common Pleas’ judgment 

dismissing his case. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of 

jurisdiction “over suits that are essentially appeals from state-court 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 

Case: 15-1644 Document: 003112085726 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
3

plaintiff lost in state court; (2) the plaintiff ‘complain[s] of injuries caused by [the] statecourt 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: 15-1644 Document: 003112085726 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2015