[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-10942

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cv-01420-BJD-JBT

MARGUERITE SMITH, 

widow, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

MARK H. MAHON, 

in his individual capacity, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(October 9, 2019)

Case: 19-10942 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Mark H. Mahon, Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, issued

an administrative order declaring Marguerite Smith a “vexatious litigant” and

barring her from filing any more pro se suits in the jurisdiction. Rather than appeal 

the order in state court, Smith filed a pro se complaint in the Middle District of 

Florida alleging that Chief Judge Mahon violated her Fifth and Fourteenth 

Amendment rights by denying her the opportunity to contest the administrative 

order.1 The district court, on its own motion, dismissed Smith’s complaint for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Smith appeals

contending that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction.2

We review de novo a court’s finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). Under the RookerFeldman doctrine, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to review

state court final judgments. Id. (citing D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 

1 Smith named Chief Judge Mahon and Jay B. Watson in her initial complaint. But she

did not separate her claims into different counts, nor did she specify which claims applied to 

which defendants. The district court struck the complaint but allowed Smith to file an amended 

complaint. Smith’s amended complaint contains only one claim against Chief Judge Mahon and

does not include any claims against Watson. 2 Smith moved to strike Chief Judge Mahon’s appellee response brief as untimely and 

moved for entry of default judgment. But Chief Judge Mahon’s brief was timely. He received 

an extension to file his brief by July 5, 2019, and filed his brief on July 2, 2019. Smith’s motion 

to strike and for default judgment is DENIED.

Case: 19-10942 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

462, 482 (1983)). The losing party in state court must instead appeal to a state 

appellate court or, as a last resort, to the United States Supreme Court. Id. The 

doctrine applies to claims that are “‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court’s 

judgment.” Id. (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n. 16). A claim is inextricably 

intertwined if it would “effectively overrule” the state court’s judgment. Id. The 

doctrine does not apply “where a party did not have a reasonable opportunity to 

raise his federal claim in state proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies here. Smith asked the district court to 

review and overrule the state court order. Smith’s claim is thus inextricably 

intertwined with the state court judgment. See Casale, 558 F.3d at 1260. And 

despite her classification as a vexatious litigant, Smith could still have raised her 

claim in state court if she complied with the administrative order. The district 

court properly dismissed Smith’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED. 

Case: 19-10942 Date Filed: 10/09/2019 Page: 3 of 3