[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 21

- 13679
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
TIMOTHY W. TARVER,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SUSAN A. TARVER,

Defendant

- Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:20

- cv

- 00690

- WKW

- SMD

____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 1 of 72 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13679

Before J ORDAN , R OSENBAUM , AND B RASHER , C ircuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: Appellant Timothy Tarver is a disabled veteran who receives disability benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. When he and Appellee Susan Tarver divorced in Alabama in 2012, the fi nal decree incorporated a settlement agreement under which Tarver agreed to split those benefits equally with Susan. Since that time, however, Tarver has resisted paying the disability benefits because h e believes that the agreement is void and unenforce able under federal law governing military benefits. S ee Howell v. Howell , __ U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 1400, 1405

– 06 (2017) (stating that “ federal law prohibits state courts from awarding to a divorced veteran ’ s former spouse ” military benefits apart from “disp osable retired pay,” which excludes disability pay). 1 Susan has responded by fil ing several contempt petitions in state court to

1 Nevertheless, a fter Howell
, the states have reached conflicting views about the enforceability of negotiated property divisions that are contrary to federal law in this regard. Compare Foster v. Foster , __ N.W.2d __, 2022 WL 1020390, *7 (Mich. Apr

. 5, 202 2) (“[T]he provision of the parties’ consent judgment of divorce that divides defendant ’ s military retirement and disability benefits is generally enforceable under the doctrine of res judicata even though it is preempted by federal law.”), with Williams v . Burks
, __ So.3d __, 2021 WL 5143756, *7

– 8 (Ala. Civ. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2021) ( holding that a division of disability benefits could not be enforced , and that res judicata did not apply, because the trial court “lacked the authority to award the former wife any portion of the VA disability benefits”). USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 2 of 721

- 13679 Opinion of the Court 3 enforce the payment obligation. As we noted in a prior appeal arising from these same facts, Tarver repeatedly argued to the state trial court that it “l acked jurisdiction under federal law to divide his disability benefits.

. . . But [the trial court] rep eatedly rejected this claim. And Alabama ’ s appellate courts repeatedly affirmed [the trial court’s] ruling. ” Tarver v. Reynolds , 808 F. App’x 752, 754 (11th Cir. 2020). Stymied by what he views as the state courts’ refusal to apply controlling federal law, Turner has repeatedly sought redress in federal district court. Before filing the instant case, he attempted

to rem ove a contempt petition, and he initiated separate suits against Susan and the state trial judge who entered and enforced the divorce decree. T he district court repeatedly denied Tarver relief, conclud ing in part that it lacked jurisdiction under the Rook er

Feldman doctrine to review and reject t he state court orders requiring him to pay half of his VA disability benefits to Susan

. Tarver appealed the dismissal of his suit against the state trial judge, and we affirmed. 2 See Tarver , 808 F. App’x at 754. Now, Tarver has sued Susan again in federal court , seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent her from making any claim to his disability benefits under the divorce decree and to recover the payments already made

. Again, the district court fo und

2 Although we noted that Tarver’s procedural

- due

- process claim against the
state trial judge may have survived Rooker

- Feldman , no similar claim is at issue here. See Tarver , 808 F. App’x at 754 n.3. USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 3 of 74 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13679

that it lacked jurisdiction under Rooker

- Feldman because the relief Tarver sought was “ a ruling that in substance amounts to appellate review of the state court judgment [s] rendered against him .” Tarver appeals. 3
We review de novo the district court’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine. Behr v. Campbell , 8 F.4th 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2021). The Rooker

-Feldman doctrine recognizes that “s tate court litigants do not have a right of appeal in th e lower federal courts .” Id. at 120 9

– 10. “[O] nly the Supreme Court can ‘ reverse or modify ’ state court judgments; neither district courts nor the circuits can touch them. ” Id. at 1210

. Therefore, when a litigant “come[s] to federal district court [] comp laining of injuries caused by state

- court judgments renderedbefore the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments ,” the court lacks jurisdiction. Behr , 8 F.4th at 1210 (quotation marks omitted )

. The doctrine is “limited” and “narrow
, ” however : “ Only when alosing state court litigant calls on a district court to modify or overturn an injurious state

- court judgment should a claim be dismissed under Rooker

- Feldman .” Id. at 1210

– 11. It is not a “ broad means

3 Tarver also appeals the district court’s alternative conclusion that, given the prior litigation history, the suit was barred under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Becaus e we affirm the dismissal under Rooker

- Feldman
, we need not consider whether claim or issue preclusion also applies. USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 4 of 721

- 13679 Opinion of the Court 5 of dismissing all claims related in one way or another to state court litigation. ” Id. at 1212. Here, Tarver’s lawsuit falls within the narrow purview of Rooker

- Feldman

. He s ought a declaration that “the state’s conduct violates 38 U.S.C. § 5301,” an order enjoining Susan from any further atte mpt to enforce the decree , and reimbursement of the payments already made. Each of these requests relies on the same essential claim: t hat the state courts have violated controlling federal law and acted without jurisdiction by enforcing the negotiated division of his VA disability benefits at divorce. Before filing his complaint in this case, Tarver repeatedly made that same claim in state

court , but the trial court repeatedly rejected it and confirmed his obligation to pay, and Alabama’s appellate court s repeatedly affirmed the trial court’s rulings. Tarver , 808 F. App’x at 754.
Because Tarver is a “ losing state court litigant ” who in substance “ calls on a district court to modify or overturn an injurious

state

- court judgment
, ” his complaint is subject to dismissal under Rooker

- Feldman

. See Behr , 8 F.4th at 1210

– 11 (“[A] ppeals of state court judgments are barred under Rooker

- Feldman , no matter how the claims are styled. ”). Tarver’s injuries were caused by state

court rulings

. Id. at 1212 (“ The injury must be caused by the judgment itself. Period. ”). And he invites federal court “ review and rejection ” of those rulings by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that would nullify the state court’s judgment that Susan is to

re ceive a portion of his disability benefits. See id. ; Powell v. Powell
, 80 F.3d 464, 467 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that Rooker

- Feldman USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 5 of 76 Opinion of the Court 21

- 13679

barred review of a veteran’s constitutional claim because granting him relief would “ would effectively nullify the state court ’ s judgment that [his former spouse] is to receive a portion of his naval retirement pay ” (quotation marks omitted))

. Tarver raises an abundance of arguments in response
, all of which we have considered and found to be unpersuasive. We address some of these arguments in more detail below. First, the underlying state court orders are sufficiently final to apply Rooker

- Feldman

. See Nicholson v. Shafe , 558 F.3d 1266, 1277 (11th Cir. 2009) (stating that, for Rooker

- Feldm an to apply, the state

- court proceedings “must have ended” when the federal action was filed). S tate proceedings confirm ing Tarver’ s obligation to pay under the divorce decree were finished well before this action was filed. As we stated in the prior app eal, Rooker

- Feldman could be applied because Alabama appellate courts have repeatedly affirmed the state trial court’s rulings enforcing the division of his disability benefits

. T arver , 808 F. App’x at 754

. Second, t here is no exception to Rooker

- Feldman for situations where a state court misapplies controlling federal law

. Rooker

- Feldman recognizes that only the Supreme Court may “ review state court decisions for errors of federal law ,” not district or circuit courts. Wood v. Orange C n

ty. , 715 F.2d 1543, 1547 (11th Cir. 1983) ; c f. Powell , 80 F.3d at 467 ( “ Even if the federal court collateral attack on the state court judgment is premised on the unconstitutionality of a federal statute, the Rooker

–

Feldman doctrine still applies. ” ). A n ap peal wit h merit is still an appeal

. USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 6 of 721

- 13679 Opinion of the Court 7
Third, Tarver has not identif ied a specific grant of jurisdiction to federal courts to hear the kind of challenge he brings here. See, e.g. , Carmona v. Carmona , 603 F.3d 1041, 1051 (9th Cir. 2010) (“ Where Congress explicitly grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts, Rooker

- Feldman cannot bar collateral review of a state court order in federal court. ”). The statute cited by Tarver , 38 U.S.C. § 511(a), speaks to the authority of the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs over benefits decisions ; it does not grant any jurisdiction to federal courts

. Fourth, Tarver did not raise a n y “independent claim” that could evade the scope of Rooker

- Feldman

. See Behr , 8 F.4th at 1212 (stating that R ooker

- Feldman does not block claims “ if the plaintiff presents some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached ” ). He d id not claim that Susan engaged in any wrongful conduct apart from enforcing the alleged ly “void ab initio ” judgment. Rather, he brought what

“ amount [s] to a direct attack on the underlying state court decision [s].” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Finally, Tarver’s arguments based on policy concerns and judicial economy are unavailing because we lack jurisdiction to grant the relief he seeks. So even if we agreed with him on these matters, it would not change the result in this case.
For all these reasons
, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Tarver’s complaint based on the Rooker

- Feldman doctrine.
AFFIRMED. USCA11 Case: 21-13679 Date Filed: 09/22/2022 Page: 7 of 7