Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01367/USCOURTS-ca8-15-01367-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ashley Rose Henke
Appellee
Safe Haven
Appellee
Kidane Sante Shulbe
Appellant
State of Minnesota
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1367

___________________________

Kidane Sante Shulbe

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

The State of Minnesota; Ashley Rose Henke; Safe Haven

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: October 28, 2015

Filed: November 6, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kidane Shulbe appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint, in which 1

he sought relief from an order entered in a state-court case and he sought damagesfor

The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United StatesDistrict Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota.

Appellate Case: 15-1367 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2015 Entry ID: 4334275 
injuries allegedly resulting from that order. He has also filed in this court a motion

seeking the removal of judges who were involved in the state-court proceedings. The

district court dismissed Shulbe’s complaint without prejudice upon concluding that,

under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon

2

careful review of the record and Shulbe’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the

dismissal was proper. See Minch Family LLLP. v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed

Dist., 628 F.3d 960, 965 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo standard of review); see also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (if court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, court must dismiss action); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus.

Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Shulbe’s pending

motion.

______________________________

See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,

2

263 U.S. 413 (1923).

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-1367 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2015 Entry ID: 4334275