F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 20 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1018 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 80 44 3- CV-KLR STEWART GREENBERG, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us JA ME S Z IN G A L E , Ch ai rm an , E xe cu tiv e D ir ec tor

F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of Re ve nue , in h i s o f f i c i a l c ap a c i ty, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 15 TH JUDICIAL CIR CUIT OF FLORIDA INA N D F O R P A L M B E A CH CO U N T Y , T he Honorable E dwar d Fine, C hief Judge, D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 20, 200 5)2

Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H and H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff S te w ar t G re enbe rg appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of the de fe ndants ’ m oti on t o di sm iss his c om pla int c ha lle ngi ng the c onst itutio na lity of Fl or id a’s al im on y

pro vi si on s, Fl a. St at . ch. § 61 .08 et s eq . After r ev ie w, we a f f i rm. I. BACK GROUND Inase parate state c ourt c as e, the F lor ida state tr ia l c ourt aw ar de d a lim ony to Mrs. E laine Gr eenberg, pursuant to Fla. Stat. ch. § 61.08. Subsequently , Mr . G re enbe rg , pr o se , f

ile d ac om

pla int in fe de ra l c ourt c ha lle ngi ng the co nst itutio na lity

of F lor ida ’ s a lim ony

pr ovi sio ns. Upon the de fe ndants ’ m oti on, th e d is tri ctco ur t d is m is se d Gre enbe rg ’s com pl ai nt . Greenbe rg ap pe al s. II. D ISCU SSION A. Facial C onstitut ional Challenges On ap pe al , Green be rg arg ue s t ha t t he ali m on y pro vi si on s i n F la . Sta t. An n. § 61. 08 e t se q. , are f

ac ia lly unc onst itutio na l be ca

use the y vio late : ( 1) the due pr oc es s cl au se of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t; (2 ) the e qua l pr ote ct ionc lause of the Fourteenth Am endm ent; and (3) the T hirteenth Am endm ent’ s ban on in volu ntary servitude.3

1. D ue P ro ce ss W e fi rs t c onc lud e that G re enbe rg ha s f ai le d to state asub stanti ve due process claim . The D ue Proce ss Clause of the Fourteenth Am endm ent provides that no “ St at e [s ha ll] de pr ive any pe rs on o f lif

e, li be rty , or

pr ope rty , w ith out

due pr oc es s of

law . ” U . S. Co nst . a m en d. X IV , § 1. S ubst an tiv e due pr oc es s pr ote ct s tho se r igh ts tha t are c onsi de re d “ fundam en ta l” or “ im pli ci t i n th e co nc ep t of ordered liberty .” McK inney v. P ate, 20 F.3d 1550, 1556 (11th Cir. 1994) (en banc ) (quot at ionm ar

ks o m itt ed ). T his Co urt ha s r ec ogni ze d th at “ the r igh t t o m ar ry is a fundam en ta l r igh t pr ote ct ed by the sub stanti ve c om

pone nt o f the D ue Process Cla

use of the Fourteenth Am endm ent. . . .” Par ks v. City of W arner Ro bin s, G a. , 43 F . 3d 6 09, 613 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ( ci tin g P lanne d P ar en tho od v . Ca se y , 505 U . S. 833 , 112 S . Ct . 279 1 ( 1992 ); Z ab loc ki v . Re dha il, 434 U . S. 374 , 98 S. C t. 673 (1978); Loving v . V irginia, 388 U. S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817 (1967); McCabe v. Sharr ett, 12 F. 3d 15 58 (11th Cir. 1994 )). Gr eenberg ar gues that the dis trict court er red in failing to applythe strict sc rutiny standard of r ev ie wto Fl a. S tat. c h. § 61 . 08. W e dis ag re e. “ [T ] he Su pr em e Co urt ha s he ld tha t no t e ve ry statut e ‘ w hic h r el at es in any w ay to the incidents o f or pre requisites for m arria ge’ m ust be sub j ected to strict scrutiny .” Park s, 4 3 F .3dat 6 13 (qu ot in g Zab lo ck i, 4 34 U.S. at 3 86 , 98 S. Ct. at68 1) . “ ‘T oAlthough the re is no dec ision directly on point under the United States Constitution, t he 1 Florida courts have reje cted a

constitutional challeng e to Flor ida’s alimony provisions under the Florida Constitution. See Pachec o v. Pachec o, 246 So. 2d 778, 782 (Fla. 1971) (consider ing under the Florida

Constitution the constituti onality of per mitti ngthe denial of

alimony to an adulterous wif

e, and c oncludingthat, “§ 61.08 is a va lid ex erc ise of the State’ s police powe r and do e s n ot c ontr ave ne c on sti tut ion a l a ssu ra nc e s o f d ue pr oc e ss a

nd e qu a l pr ote c tio n” ); se e a lso Ba rna v. B arna , 850 So. 2d 603, 604 (Fla. D ist. Ct . App. 2003) (f inding c onstitut ional attack on F lor ida a lim ony pr ov isi on s to be so fr ivo lou s a s to su pp or t th e awa rd of atto rn e y ’s fe e s a g a ins t 4 the c ontrary , r ea sona

ble r eg ulatio ns tha t do not sig nif ic an tly int er fe re w ith de ci sio ns t o e nte r int o th e m ar ita l r el at ion shi p m ay le git im at el y

be im pose d. ” I d. ( e mp h a s i s i no r i g i n a l ) ( qu o t i n g Z ab l o c k i , 4 3 4 U . S . a t3 8 6 , 9 8 S . C t . a t6 8 1 ) . “A statut or y c la ssi fi catio n m

ust int er fe re “ dir ec tly

and s ubst an tia lly ” w iththe r igh t t o m arry before it violates the D ue Proce ss Clause.” Id. (quoting Za blocki, 434 U.S . at38 7, 9 8 S . Ct. at68 1) . W e co nc lud e that F lor ida ’ s a lim ony pr ovi sio ns d o no t di re ct ly and subs tanti al ly

int er fe re w iththe r igh t t o m ar ry . T he F lor ida

a lim ony pr ovi sio ns d o not pr ohi bit m ar ri ag e, nor pr ev en t a pe rs on f ro m m ar ry ing , nor sub stanti al ly int er fe re w iththe r igh t t o m ar ry . Mo re ove r, the a lim ony pr ovi sio ns d o no t pr ohi bit div or ce , pr ev en t a

pe rs on f ro m dis sol vin g hi s or

he r m ar ri ag e, nor subs tanti al ly

int er fe re w iththe de ci sio n to div or ce . I nde ed , the a lim ony pr ovi sio ns do n ot a ff ec t a F lor idi an ’ s a

bil ity to obt ai n adiv or ce or

to re m ar ry . T he F lor ida provisi ons si m

ply provide a m echanism

for parties to receive spousal sup port while they

disso lve their m arria ge. 1the par

ty who asser

ted it). 5 Be ca use F lor ida ’ s a lim ony

pr ovi sio ns d o no t di re ct ly and s ubst an tia lly int er fe re w iththe r igh t t o m ar ry , w e subj ec t the pr ovi sio ns t o r at ion al ba sis sc rutiny . P ar

ks, 43 F . 3d at 61 4- 15. R at ion al ba sis r ev ie wonl y r equir es that a statut e be “ ratio na lly

r el at ed to the a ch ie ve m en t of

ale git im at e gove rn m en t purpos e. ” G ary

v. City of W arner Robins , G a. , 311 F. 3d 13 34, 1338-39 (11th Cir. 2002 ) (quotation m arks and citation om itted). W e conclude, and Gree nberg does no t d is pu te , th atth e al im on y pro vi si on s s at is fy

rat io na l b as is rev ie w. T hus, G r e e nb e r g h a s f

a i l e dt o s t a t e as ub s t an t i v e du e p r o c e s s c l a i m. 2. Eq ua l P ro te ct ion T he E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se of the F ourte en th A m en dm en t pr ovi de s th at no state sha ll “ de ny

to any pe rs on w ith in i ts j ur isd ic tio n th e equa l pr ote ct ionof the law s. ” U . S. Co nst . a m en d. X IV , § 1. InO rr v. O rr , 440 U . S. 268 , 282 -8 3, 99 S . Ct . 110 2, 111 2- 14 ( 1979 ), the Su pr em e Co urt stru ck

down A la

bam a’ s a lim ony

statut e be ca

use it a llo w ed w ive s, not hu sbands , to re ceive alim ony . The A labam a alim ony statute on its fac e treated m enf ili ng f or div or ce dif

fe re ntl y than w om en , e ve n th oughthe tw o w er e sim ilarl y sit ua te d. Appl y ing int er

m ed iate sc rutiny , the S upr em e Co urt de te rm ine d th at the statut e vio late d th e E qua l P ro te ct ionCl au se . I d.6

Inthi s c as e, G re enbe rg ha s no t a lle ge d th at the F lor ida

a lim ony pr ovi sio ns on the ir f ac e cr eate c la ssi fi catio ns b etw ee n si m ilarl y sit ua te d pe opl e. A ny

party fil in g fo r di vo rce h as th e ri gh t t o re qu es t al im on y pu rs ua ntto Fla . Sta t. ch . § 61.08. A ccordingly , G reenberg has f ailed to state a claim

under the Equal Protection Clause. 3. Involuntary Ser vitude The T hirteenth Am endm ent provides th at “ [n] either slavery nor invol untary servitude, except as a

punis hm ent for cr im e . . ., shall exist within th e U nited St at es . . . . ” U . S. Co nst . A m en d X II I, § 1. A s st at ed by the S upr em e Co urt, “ [t ] he pr im ar y pur pose of the [ T hirte en th] A m en dm en t w as to ab oli sh the ins tit uti on o f Afri can sl av ery as itha d e xi st edin th e Uni te d S ta te s at th e ti m e o f th e Ci vi l War. . . .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Kozm in sk i, 4 87 U.S. 93 1, 9 42 , 10 8 S . Ct. 2 75 1, 2 75 9 (1 98 8) . In Kozm inski , the S uprem e Court noted that “ in every case in which this Court has fo und a co ndi tio n of

inv oluntary

se rv itu de , the vic tim

ha d no a va ila

ble c hoi ce but to w ork or

be sub j ec t t o le ga l sanc tio n. ” I d. a t 94 3, 108 S . Ct . 276 0. Inthi s c as e, G re enbe rg ha s f ai le d to state ac au se of

a ct ionund er

the T hirte en th A m en dm en t. A lim ony is not the ty pe of sub j ec t m atte r the T hirte en th A m en dm en t w as de sig ne d to a ddr es s. F urthe r, the F lor ida a lim ony pr ovi sio ns d o not em ploythe use of phy sical or legal coer cion to force people into inv olun taryGre enber galso argues that he w as entitled to an e videntiary hear ing be cause the district 2 c ourt fa ile d to a c c e pt t

he fa c ts i n h is c omp la int

a s tr ue ; ho we ve r, he fa ils to s tate any sp e c if ic examples of fac ts that the district court did not acc ept as true . Th e Roo ke r- F e ldm an d oc tr ine is b a se d o n th e fo llo wi ngtw o c a se s: D istri c t of Col umb ia 3 Court of Ap pe a ls v . F e ldm an, 46 0 U .S. 46 2, 10 3 S. Ct. 13 03 (1 98 3) ; Ro ok e r v . F ide lity Tr us t Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S . Ct. 149 (1923). 7 se rv itu de . A lth oughF lor idi an s who are r equir ed to pay a lim ony m ust do s o or face consequences, such as being held in contem pt of court, the district court correc tly concluded that th is does no t am ountto invo luntary servitude. 2 B. A s A pp lie d C on st it ut ion al C ha lle ng e Although the district court had jurisdiction to add ress G reenberg’ s facial co nst itutio na l c ha lle nge s to F la . S tat. c h. § 61 . 08 e t se q. , the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly determ ined that it lacked sub j ect m atter j urisdictio n und er the R ooker-Feldm an doc tr ine to ad dr es s G re enbe rg ’ s “ as appl ie d” c onst itutio na l c ha lle nge . I n c ontra st 3 to the f ac ia l c onst itutio na l c ha lle nge , G re enbe rg ’ s a s a ppl ie d c ha lle nge is ine xtr ic ab ly

int er tw ine d w iththe state c ourt pr oc ee din gs and i s barr ed by the Rooker-Feldm an doctrine. Ac cording to th e Rooker-F eldm an doctrine, “ ‘ a U nited States District C ourt ha s n o aut ho rit y

to rev ie w fin al jud gm en ts of ast at e co ur t i n ju di ci al pro ceed in gs . R e v i e wo f

s u c h j u d g me n t s may b e h a do n l y i n[ th e U n i t e dS t a t e s S up r e me Co urt] . ’ ” P ow el l v. P ow el l, 80 F . 3d 4 64, 466 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) ( al te ratio n inThis Court does have jurisdiction to hea r Gre enber g ’s fa cial cha lleng e to the alimony 4 provisions. This facial c halleng e is not “inextricably intertwined” beca

use this claim does not succe ed only

to the extent that the state court wr ong ly decide d the issues befor e it. See F eldman, 460 U.S. at 482-83 & 486, 103 S. Ct . at 1315-16 & 1317 (statingthat fede ral c ourts “have subject matter jur isdiction over g ener al cha lleng es to state [statutes] . . . which do not re quire revie w of a

final state- court judg ment in a par ticular c ase” ); see a lso Dale v. Moore , 121 F.3d 624, 626-27 (11th Cir. 1997) (notingthat district courts have jurisdiction over fa cial constitutional challeng es); B lue Cross and B lue Shield of Mary land v. Weiner, 868 F .2d 1550, 1554 (11th Cir. 1989) (“ Thus, althoug h fede ral district cour ts have jurisdiction over g ener al constitutional challeng es, Rooker a nd Fe ldman prohibit such courts fr om exercising jur isdiction to decide f

eder al issues that are inext rica bly intertwined with a state court’s judgment.”). 8 or igi na l) ( quot ing F el dm an , 460 U . S. a t 48 2, 103 S . Ct . a t 13 15) . “ T he doc tr ine applies not only

to claim s actually

raised in the state court, but also to claim s that w er e not r ai se d inthe state c ourt but are ‘ ine xtr ic ab ly int er tw ine d’ w iththe state co urt’ s j udgm en t. ” P ow el l, 80 F . 3d at 46 6. T he F lor ida

state tr ia l c ourt aw ar de d a lim ony to Mr s. G re enbe rg , pur suant t o Fla. Stat. ch. § 61.08. Mr. Gr eenberg’ s claim that the alim ony

provisio ns are u n co n s t i tu t i o n al as ap p l i edt o h i m i s i n ex tri cab l y i n t er twi n edwi th th e s t at e c o u rt ’s de ci sio n to aw ar d a lim ony to Mr s. G re enbe rg . I f w e w er e nowto hol d th at the Fl or ida tr ia l c our t un co nst itutio na lly

appl ie d th e Fl or ida

a lim ony pr ovi sio ns a s to G re enbe rg , w e w oul d “ ef fe ct ive ly nul lif y ” the state c ourt’ s j udgm en t tha t M rs . Gr eenberg re ceive alim ony . See Powe ll, 80 F. 3d at 467 (holding that RookerFeldm an barre d “ as applied” challenge to state court decision to distribu te a portion of husband ’ s naval retirem ent pay to wife upon divorce). 49

T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

G re enbe rg ’ s a s a

ppl ie d c ha lle nge fo r la ck of sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n.

III. CO NC LUS ION Fo r t h e f o re g o i n g re as o n s , t h e d i s tri ctco u rtp ro p er l y d i s m i s s edGr ee nb er g ’s co m pla int . AFFIRMED.