[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-12852

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

KENNETH CARL GUY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, 

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-60120-BB

____________________

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 1 of 9
2 Opinion of the Court 19-12852

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Carl Guy appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) of his pro se 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging violations of the Constitution 

of the United States by the State of Florida and Plaza Home Mortgage. After careful review, we affirm.

I. 

Guy filed a pro se complaint against the State of Florida and 

Plaza. The complaint alleged the following. When Guy purchased 

his condominium in Oakland Park, Florida, he was given two sets 

of documents that indicated two different prices, $75,000 and 

$79,000. This, Guy would later surmise, was an attempted mortgage fraud scheme. Shortly after the purchase was completed, one 

or more of the orchestrators of the fraud—whose ranks included, 

unbeknownst to him at the time, the condominium’s community 

association manager—broke into Guy’s condominium to change 

the documents to reflect the higher sale price. When Guy reported 

the fraud to the community association manager, she told him to 

keep quiet while the investigation was ongoing, but her actual motivation was to “inform[] everyone . . . that [Guy] was ‘crazy’ in 

order to discredit [him] when and if he attempted to inform other 

members of the association about the mortgage fraud scheme.”

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 2 of 9
19-12852 Opinion of the Court 3

Doc. 1 at 3.1 The manager also contacted Guy’s employer, Newsmax Media Inc., to have Guy fired. And the manager told “everyone” in the condominium complex and at Newsmax of a disease 

Guy was living with, a disclosure Guy did not consent to having 

been made. Id. at 4. 

 Guy further alleged that, due to this disclosure, Newsmax 

and the condominium association “fear[ed] a discrimination [lawsuit],” so they “devised a plan to fire and evict” him. Id. Newsmax 

and the condominium association thereafter repeatedly harassed,

stalked, threatened, and attempted to frame him and committed 

“fraud upon the court,” including by “con[ning] employees of the 

State of Florida to assist in committing acts to keep [him] from any 

means or ability to litigate.” Id. at 5. 

Guy’s home was foreclosed upon in state-court proceedings 

in September 2017. Guy appealed unsuccessfully to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. 

Although the allegations centered on an alleged mortgage 

fraud scheme, the complaint’s substantive claims concerned 

wrongs that allegedly took place in the foreclosure proceedings. 

The complaint asserted 19 numbered claims for relief, many of 

which contain allegations that overlap and that reference numerous court proceedings. We summarize them as best as we can understand them. Count I, against Fourth District Court of Appeal 

1 “Doc.” numbers are the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 3 of 9
4 Opinion of the Court 19-12852

Judge Edward Artau, alleged that details in that court’s record in

the foreclosure proceedings were altered, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Count II, also 

against Judge Artau, alleged that the judge failed to enforce a state 

procedural rule against Plaza during the foreclosure proceedings, 

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count III, against 

Broward County Circuit Court Judge Joel Lazarus, alleged a Fourteenth Amendment violation by incorporating the allegations of 

Count I. Count IV, against Plaza’s Vice President of Operations 

Keith Manson, alleged that Plaza had “unclean hands” in the foreclosure proceedings and that Plaza’s claims should have been “dismissed with prejudice.” Id. at 14. Count V, against an unknown 

clerk at the Fourth District Court of Appeal, alleged obstruction 

during the foreclosure proceedings relating to an attempt by Guy 

to remove the proceedings to federal court, in violation of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. 

Count VI, against an unknown clerk at the Broward County 

Clerk of Court, alleged that dates on the docket in Guy’s foreclosure case had been altered, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments. Count VII, against Judge Lazarus, alleged the same 

facts as Count VI, also in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendments. Count VIII, against an unknown clerk at the 

Broward County Clerk of Court, alleged that the State had failed 

to prosecute Manson for perjury during the foreclosure proceedings, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Counts

IX and X, against Judge Artau, alleged as in Count I that the record 

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 4 of 9
19-12852 Opinion of the Court 5

in the foreclosure proceedings was altered or that evidence was 

suppressed, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 

Count XI, also against Judge Artau, alleged that the record 

in the foreclosure proceedings improperly was altered and that 

Plaza was allowed to commit mortgage fraud without consequence, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count XII, 

against Deputy Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court Mark Clayton, 

alleged that the clerk’s office illegally dismissed his appeal from the 

Fourth District Court of Appeal, in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. Count XIII, against unknown clerks in the Florida Supreme Court, Fourth District Court of Appeal, and Broward 

County Circuit Court, alleged that documents were removed from 

those courts’ dockets in the foreclosure proceedings, in violation of 

the Fourteenth Amendment. Count XIV, against Judge Lazarus, alleged that Guy was denied the right to apply for indigency status in 

his foreclosure case, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Count XV, against the “County Clerk of Courts of the Florida Supreme Court,” id. at 28, alleged that Guy was denied the right to 

invoke the Florida Supreme Court’s mandatory jurisdiction in 

seeking to appeal the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in 

his foreclosure case, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Count XVI, against the Deputy Clerk of the Florida Supreme 

Court, alleged that Guy was denied the right to seek a writ of certiorari to review his foreclosure case in the Supreme Court of the 

United States, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Count 

XVII, against Judge Lazarus, alleged that the record in Guy’s 

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 5 of 9
6 Opinion of the Court 19-12852

foreclosure proceedings was repeatedly altered, denying him access to the courts, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Count XVIII, against an unknown clerk at the Broward County 

Clerk of Court, alleged that his foreclosure proceedings were illegally dismissed, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Count XIX, against Judge Lazarus, alleged that evidence 

was altered in Guy’s foreclosure proceeding before the Fourth District Court of Appeal to cover up the fact that a person who physically attacked Guy was not arrested, in violation of the Fourteenth 

Amendment. 

In addition to the 19 substantive counts, the complaint requested a preliminary injunction that would “stay the proceedings 

in the state court.” Id. at 41. In the absence of an injunction, the 

complaint alleged, Guy would lose his home. And in the “Prayer 

[f]or Relief,” the complaint reiterated the request for “[a]n emergency . . . injunction to stay all proceedings in any and every case 

that is the result of (and including),” the Broward County Circuit

Court foreclosure proceeding. Id. at 43.

Guy sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The district 

court sua sponte reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2) and concluded, as relevant here, that the complaint 

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.2 Thus, the court dismissed the complaint without 

2 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman,

460 U.S. 462 (1983).

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 6 of 9
19-12852 Opinion of the Court 7

prejudice and denied as moot Guy’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

Guy has appealed.

II. 

Guy argues that the district court erred in determining that 

his suit was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We review de 

novo a district court’s application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1069 (11th Cir. 

2013).

“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine eliminates federal court jurisdiction over those cases that are essentially an appeal by a state 

court loser seeking to relitigate a claim that has already been decided in a state court.” Target Media Partners v. Specialty Mktg. 

Corp., 881 F.3d 1279, 1281 (11th Cir. 2018). The doctrine “ensure[s] 

that the inferior federal courts do not impermissibly review decisions of the state courts—a role reserved to the United States Supreme Court.” Id. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal 

court is barred from adjudicating a claim that was “either (1) one 

actually adjudicated by a state court or (2) one inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment.” Id. at 1286 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

“[A] claim that at its heart challenges the state court decision 

itself—and not the statute or law which underlies that decision—

falls within the doctrine because it complains of injuries caused by 

state-court judgments and invites review and rejection of those 

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 7 of 9
8 Opinion of the Court 19-12852

judgments.” Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1211 (11th Cir. 2021)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “[F]inding a claim to be barred 

by Rooker-Feldman requires that it amount to a direct attack on 

the underlying state court decision.” Id. at 1212 (internal quotation 

marks omitted). The doctrine “does not block claims that require 

some reconsideration of a decision of a state court if the plaintiff 

presents some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal 

conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was 

a party.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, in Behr we 

admonished district courts that the doctrine “will almost never apply.” Id.

In Behr, we emphasized the importance of the complaint’s 

prayer for relief: “claims that seek only damages for constitutional 

violations of third parties—not relief from the judgment of the 

state court—are permitted,” whereas claims that directly seek relief 

from the state court’s judgment are not. Id.; see VanderKodde v. 

Mary Jane Elliott, P.C., 951 F.3d 397, 402 (6th Cir. 2020) (explaining 

that a court cannot determine whether a plaintiff’s injury arises 

from the state-court judgment and is barred by Rooker-Feldman

“without reference to the plaintiff’s request for relief” (alteration 

adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)), cited with approval 

in Behr, 8 F.4th at 1213.

This is one of those the rare cases in which the district court 

lacked jurisdiction to hear each claim in Guy’s complaint under the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. This is because in each claim, Guy asked 

the district court to “review and reject” the state courts’ judgments

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 8 of 9
19-12852 Opinion of the Court 9

in the foreclosure proceedings. Behr, 8 F.4th at 1213 (internal quotation marks omitted). Each claim alleged that actors in the statecourt proceedings, whether judges, clerks, or an employee for the 

mortgage company, had prejudiced his state court foreclosure proceedings. This alone is not sufficient under Behr to invoke the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. But the relief Guy requested was a stay 

of the foreclosure proceedings in state court so that his condominium would not be foreclosed upon. This prayer for relief evidences 

a direct attack of the state-court judgment, just as we indicated in 

Behr. Id.; see VanderKodde, 951 F.3d at 402. So, the district court 

correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over any of the 

claims in the complaint under Rooker-Feldman.3

AFFIRMED. 

3 Guy asserts that he made an “England reservation” in state court, barring 

application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Appellant Br. at 15–18. But the 

case he relies upon, England v. La. State Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 375 U.S. 411 

(1964), was a case concerning a different abstention doctrine. See id. at 421–23 

(holding that a federal-court litigant forced into state court because of Pullman

abstention may reserve the right to return to federal court). Guy cites no authority to support his argument that England’s reservation procedure is applicable in the Rooker-Feldman context.

Because we affirm on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction, we 

do not reach any of the alternative reasons the district court provided for dismissing the action, nor do we address Guy’s alternative arguments on appeal.

USCA11 Case: 19-12852 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 9 of 9