FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Se pt e m be r 12, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11941 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 8 0 0 2 4 - C V- DT KH G E O R G E M A Y , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s A L E X I A J . C A P O T E , in d iv id u a lly , S O U T H F L O R I D A W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T D I S T R I C T , jo in tly a n d s e v e r a lly , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( S e pt e m be r12, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , B IR C H an d D U B IN A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

G e or ge M a y , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rdi s m i s s i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . §§ 1983 a nd 1985 a c t i on. B e c aus e the i s s ue s r a i s e d a nd r e l i e f s ought before the di stri ctcourtw er e i nextri cabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th a previ ou s s t at e c ou rt j udgm e nt , the di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n di s m i s s i ng M a y ' s c om pl a i ntf orl a c k of subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on . A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM . I . B AC KG RO UN D M ayfi l ed a pro se ci vi l ac t i on agai nstA l exi a C apot e, an A ss i st antA tt orney G ener al for the st at e of F l ori da, and the S ou th F l ori da W at erM anagem entD i stri ct (“ S F W M D ”) , a F l ori da st at e a gency, al l egi ng se vera l vi ol at i on s of the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on . R 1-1 at4. M ayas se rt ed thatthe defendant s ( 1) cond em ned hi s pr ope r ty a nd r e f

us e d t o pa y hi m j us tc om pe ns a t i on of $171, 666, 000, ( 2) thr e a t e ne d hi m w i th de a th a nd c ont e m ptof c our ti n or de rt o pr e ve nthi m f r om a c c e s s i ng the c our t s a nd pr e s e nt i ng hi s e vi de nc e of j us tc om pe ns a t i on, a nd ( 3) on the 11 th, 19 th, and 2 4th o f A ug ust20 04 , "r at i fi ed thei r s i gn ed w ri tt en corroborat ed l e tt e rc onf

e s s i ons " of

the i rde pr i va t i on of

M a y ' s c ons t i tut i ona l a nd c i vi l r i ght s . I d. a t 3 - 5 . M a y r e q u e s te d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e n te rju d g m e n t a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n ts fo r $ 1 7 1 , 6 6 6 , 0 0 0 , d ecl are th e st at e co u rto rd ers o f 1 1 A u g u st2 0 0 4 , 1 9 A u g u st 2004, a nd 24 A ugus t2004 unc ons t i tut i ona l , a nd e nj oi n the de f e nda nt s f r om e n f o r c in g a n y o r d e rd e p r iv in g M a y o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l a n d c iv il r ig h ts . I d . a t 5 .On 30 August 2000, due to May ’s repeate d filing of frivolous and ba seless lawsuits, the 1 district court issued an order enjoining May from filingany

further lawsuits in the district court unless he first posted a

$1500.00 contempt bond. See R1-5, exh. A.

3 In addi t i on t o h i s c om pl ai nt , M ayfi l ed att ac hm ent s of var i ou s s t at e c ou rtorders a n d h i s s t a t e c o u r tap p e l l a t e b r i e f . S e e g e n e r a l l y R 1 - 1 , e x h . A. I n r e s pons e , de f

e nda ntC apot e f

i l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s M a y ’ s c om pl a i nt a n d f o rs a n c tio n s . R 1 - 4 . C ap o te a lle g e d th a t ( 1 ) M a y w a s e n jo in e d f r o m f ilin g s u it be c a us e he f

a i l e d t o pos tthe r e qui r e d $1500. 00 bond pur s ua ntt o a30 A ugus t2000 order of the di stri ctcourt , (2) M ayfa i l ed t o st at e acause of a ct i on , (3) C apot e w as 1 e nt i t l e d t o s ove r e i gn a nd qua l i f i e d i m m uni ty , a nd ( 4) M a y s houl d be s a nc t i one d f or f ilin g af r iv o lo u s , d u p lic a tiv e a c tio n . I d . a t 1 , 4 . D e f e n d a n t S F W M D s im ila r ly f i l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s M a y ’ s c om pl a i nta nd f ors a nc t i ons , a s s e r t i ng a l l e ga t i ons s i m i l a rt o thos e s t a t e d i n C apot e ’ s m ot i on. R 1- 5. I n a ddi t i on t o i t s m ot i on, S F W M D a tt a c he d the j ury ve r di c tf r om the unde r l y i ng s t a t e pr oc e e di ngs , s how i ng aj ury va l ue d M a y ’ s pr ope r ty a t$32, 700. I d. , e xh. B . M a y r e s ponde d by f i l i ng m ot i ons a nd s uppor t i ng m e m or a ndaf orde f aul tj udgm e nta ga i ns tde f e nda nt s . R 1- 6 , 8 . M a y r e p e a te d h is a lle g a tio n s f r o m h is c o m p la in t a n d a d d e d th a t d e f e n d a n ts f i l e d “ f a l s e , f r audul e nt , f

or ge d, c our tpape r s w i th the honor abl e c our the r e i n. ” R 1- 6 a t 4 ; s e e g e n e r a lly R 1 - 8 .4

T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d w i th pr e j udi c e M a y ’ s c om pl a i ntf orl a c k of s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . R 1 - 1 0 . T h e c o u r t d e te rm in e d th a t, in h is c o m p la in t, M a y r e q u e s te d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f in d th a t th e s ta te c o u r t w r o n g ly d e c id e d h is c onde m na t i on c a s e a nd tha tthr e e othe rs t a t e c our tj udgm e nt s w e r e voi d a nd vi ol at i ve of hi s c on st i tut i on al ri gh t s. Id. at4. T he di stri ctcourtfoun d, ho w ever , tha t , unde rthe R ooke r - F e l dm a n doc tr i ne , R ooke rv. F i d. T rus tC o. , 263 U . S . 413, 415- 16, 44 S . C t . 149, 150 ( 1923) ; D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi aC our tof

A ppe a l s v. F e l dm a n, 460 U . S . 462, 476- 82, 103 S . C t . 1303, 1311- 15 ( 1983) , i tdi d notha ve s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on be c aus e M a y ’ s c ons t i tut i ona l c ha l l e nge s t o the r e s ul tof hi s s t at e c on dem nat i on ca se and the three advers e s t at e c ou rtrul i ng s w er e i nextri cabl y i nt ertw i ned w i th p ri or st at e c ou rtj ud gm ent s. T here fore , the di stri ct c o u r t d is m is s e d M a y ’s c o m p la in t a n d d e n ie d a s m o o t d e f e n d a n t’s m o tio n s to d is m is s f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im a n d im m u n ity c h a lle n g e s . I d . a t 5 .

I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n ap p e a l , M a y a r g u e s th a td e f e n d a n t s h a v e a d mi tt e d a l l o f h i s c l a i ms th ro u g h th eir f

ailu re to d en y th eir u n law fu l acts a n d d ep riv atio n s o f M ay ’s const i tut i on al and ci vi l ri gh t s a nd thei r “ si gn ed w ri tt en, corr ob orat ed, l ett er c o n f e s s io n d a te d J a n u a ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 5 , a n d J a n u a ry 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 .” A p p e lla n t’s B r ie f a t 2 . Fu r th e r , M a y c o n t e n d s th a tth e Ro o k e r - Fe l d ma n d o c tr i n e i s n o tab a rt o h i s c l a i ms5

be c a us e hi s a l l e ga t i ons tha tthe de f e nda nt s ( 1) pr e ve nt e d hi m f r om a c c e s s i ng the st at e c ou rt s a nd pres ent i ng hi s e vi dence of j ustcom pensat i on t o a j ury, (2) f i l ed fr audu l entdo cum ent s, and (3) threa t ened M ayw i th d ea th, ar e a ss ert i on s of new l e ga l w r ongs a nd i l l e ga l a c t s . T he r e f or e , M a y m a i nt a i ns tha tthe de f e nda nt s ha ve vi ol at ed and d epri ved h i m of hi s “ prot ec t ed C on st i tut i on al R i gh t s prot ec t ed un der A r tic le I , S e c tio n 9 , C lau s e I , A r tic le I , S e c tio n 1 0 , C lau s e I , A r tic le V I , th e F ir s t, . .

. , F our th, F i f

th, N i nth, S e ve nth, T hi r t e e nth, F our t e e nth [ ] A m e ndm e nt , the D ue P r o c e s s [ ] C lau s e , th e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C lau s e .” I d . a t 1 1 . W e have hel d, i n C adetv. B ul ger, 37 7 F . 3d 11 73 , 11 79 (11th C i r. 20 04 ), that “[ f ]e d e r a l c o u r ts a r e o b lig a te d to in q u ir e in to s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n s u as p o n te w he ne ve ri tm a y be l a c ki ng. ” ( C i t a t i on a nd punc tua t i on om i tt e d) . Q ue s t i ons of s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on a r e r e vi e w e d de novo. G oodm a n e x r e l . G oodm a n v. S ip o s , 2 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 7 , 1 3 3 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n G o o d m a n , w e e x p la in e d th a t [t ] he R oo ker- F el dm an do ctri ne prov i des thatfe dera l court s, other than the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt , have no autho ri ty t o revi ew the fi nal ju d g m e n ts o f

s ta te c o u r ts . T h e d o c tr in e e x te n d s n o t o n ly to c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s pr e s e nt e d ora dj udi c a t e d by as t a t e c our t , but al so t o cl ai m s thatar e “ i nextri cabl y i nt ertw i ned” w i th a st at e c ou rt ju d g m e n t. A f

e d e r a l c la im is “in e x tr ic ab ly in te r tw in e d ” w ith as ta te c our tj udgm e nti f

the f e de r a l c l a i m s uc c e e ds onl y t o the e xt e nttha tthe st at e c ou rtw rong l y dec i ded the i ss ues bef ore i t . H ow ever , even i f a c l a i m i s “ i ne xtr i c abl y i nt e r tw i ne d” w i th the s t a t e c our tj udgm e nt , the d o c tr in e d o e s n o t ap p ly if th e p la in tif

f h a d n o r e a s o n ab le o p p o r tu n ity t o rai se h i s fed eral cl ai m i n st at e p ro ceed i n g s.6

G o o d m a n , 2 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 2 ( c ita tio n a n d q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . I n or de rf

orR ooke r - F e l dm a n t o ba radi s tr i c tc our t ’ s j ur i s di c t i on, f our c r i t e r i am us tbe m e t . A m os v. G l y nn C ounty B d. of T a x A s s e s s or s , 347 F . 3d 1249, 1 2 6 5 n .1 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . T h e f o u rc r ite r iaa r e : ( 1) the pa r ty i n f

e de r a l c our ti s the s a m e a s the pa r ty i n s t a t e c our t ; ( 2) the pr i ors t a t e c our trul i ng w a s af i na l orc onc l us i ve j udgm e nton the m e r its ; ( 3 ) th e p a r ty s e e k in g r e lie f in f e d e r a l c o u r t h a d ar e a s o n ab le oppor tuni ty t o r a i s e i t s f e de r a l c l a i m s i n the s t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ng; a nd ( 4) the i s s ue be f

or e the f e de r a l c our tw a s e i the ra dj udi c a t e d by the state c o u rt o r w as in ex tricab ly in tertw in ed w ith th e s tate co u rt’s ju d g m e n t. Id. (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). T he S up re m e C ou rthas hel d thatthe R oo ker- F el dm an doc tr i ne i s c onf

i ne d t o c a s e s tha ta r e “ br oughtby s t a t e - c our tl os e r s c om pl a i ni ng of i nj uri es caused by st at e- courtj ud gm ent s r endered before the di stri ctcourt p ro ceed i n g s co m m en ced an d i n v i t i n g d i stri ctco u rtrev i ew an d rej ect i o n o f th o se j udgm e nt s . ” E xxon M obi l C orp. v. S audi B a s i c I ndus . C orp. , ___ U . S . ___, ___, 12 5 S . C t . 15 17 , 15 21 -22 (20 05 ). M a y ’ s c a s e f

i t s s q u a r e l y w i th i n th e typ e o f c a s e s t o w h i c h th e Su p r e me C o u r t d e te rm in e d th e R o o k e r - F e ld m a n d o c tr in e ap p lie s . S e e id . a t _

__ , 1 2 5 S . C t. a t1521- 22. I n M a y ’ s s t a t e c our tc onde m na t i on pr oc e e di ngs , oc c urr i ng pr i ort o the co m m en ce m en t o f th e d istrict co u rt p ro ce ed in g s, a ju ry d eter m in ed th at M ay ’s pr ope r ty w a s w or th $32, 700, r a the rtha n the $171, 666. 000 tha tM a y a s s e r t e d. R 1-7

5, e xh. B ; R 1- 1 a t3, 5. M or e ove r , the s t a t e c our tde ni e d M a y ’ s m ot i on f ore ntry of de f a ul tj udgm e nta nd di s m i s s e d hi s a c t i on w i th pr e j udi c e . R 1- 1, e xh. A . U pon l osi ng i n thatst at e c ou rtproceedi ng , M ayre qu es t ed thatthe di stri ctcourtre vi ew thatj ud gm entand sup pl anti t s ow n v al uat i on of M ay ’ s property. Id. at5. T he pr oc e dur a l f

r a m e w ork i n M a y ’ s c a s e i s , the r e f or e , s i m i l a rt o tha tde s c r i be d by the S up re m e C ou rti n E xx on M ob i l . S ee E xx on M ob i l , ___ U . S . at___, 12 5 S . C t . at 1 5 2 1 - 2 2 . T h i s case al so sat i sfi es th e fo u r cri t eri a w e setfo rth i n A m o s. S ee A m o s, 34 7 F . 3d at12 65 n. 11 . F i rs t , the part i es t o the i nst antac t i on ar e the sa m e part i es as i n st at e c ou rt . S ee R 1-1, exh. A . S ec on d, the pri or st at e c ou rtrul i ng w as a f i nal ju d g m e n t o n th e m e r its b e c au s e aju ry d e te rm in e d th e v a lu a tio n o f M a y ’s p r o p e r ty i n the unde r l y i ng c onde m na t i on a c t i on a nd the s t a t e c our tde ni e d M a y ’ s s ubs e que nt c ha l l e nge s t o the j ury ’ s de t e rm i na t i on. S e e R 1- 5, e xh. B ; R 1- 1, e xh. A . T hi r d, M ayhad a rea sonabl e opp ortun i ty t o rai se hi s f eder al cl ai m s i n the st at e c ou rt proceedi ng s. D uri ng the cond em nat i on tri al , M aypres um abl y c ou l d h ave r ai se d h is c o n c e rn s r e g a r d in g v io la tio n s o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts d u e to d e f e n d a n ts f a i l ur e t o pa y hi m j us tc om pe ns a t i on a nd the i rf i l i ng of f r audul e ntdoc um e nt s , a nd the r e i s no e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d i ndi c a t i ng the s t a t e c our tpr e ve nt e d hi m f r om doi ng s o. S e e ge ne r a l l y R 1. A ddi t i ona l l y , M a y di d, i n f a c t , r a i s e the i s s ue of

the8

defe nd ant s’ fr audu l entdo cum ent s i n h i s bri ef t o the st at e app el l at e c ou rt , bu tfa i l ed to tie th a t a lle g a tio n to av io la tio n o f h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . S e e R 1 - 1 , e x h . A . M or e ove r , i f

the de f e nda nt s w e r e thr e a t e ni ng M a y w i th de a th i n or de rt o pr e ve nt h im f r o m a c c e s s in g th e c o u r ts , a s M a y c o n te n d e d in h is d is tr ic t c o u r t c o m p la in t, M a y h a d ar e a s o n ab le o p p o r tu n ity to r a is e th a t is s u e in o n e o f th e n u m e r o u s s ta te c o u r t a c tio n s h e p u r s u e d f o llo w in g th e c o n d e m n a tio n tr ia l. F in a lly , th e is s u e s M a y p r e s e n te d b e f o r e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w e r e in e x tr ic ab ly in te r tw in e d w ith th e s ta te c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. M a y ’s a lle g a tio n th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts vi ol a t e d hi s c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s by f a i l i ng t o pa y hi m j us tc om pe ns a t i on a nd th r e a te n in g h im w ith d e a th a n d c o n te m p t o f c o u r t is in e x tr ic ab ly in te r tw in e d w ith the pri or st at e c ou rtcond em nat i on j ud gm entbecause, i n o rderfor the di stri ctcourt t o fi nd M ay ’ s a l l egat i on i s true, i tw ou l d i nevi t abl y nee d t o fi nd thatthe st at e c ou rt w r ongl y de c i de d the c onde m na t i on i s s ue . S e e G oodm a n, 259 F . 3d a t1332 (hol di ng that“ [a ] fe dera l cl ai m [ i s] “ i nextri cabl y i nt ertw i ned” w i th the st at e c ou rt j ud gm ent[i f] the fe dera l cl ai m [] succ ee d[s] on l y t o the ext entthatthe st at e c ou rt w rong l y dec i ded the i ss ues bef ore i t ”) . T hi s i s f

urther e vi denced by the fa ctthat M a y r e que s t e d tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te nt e rj udgm e nta ga i ns tde f e nda nt s f or $1 71 , 66 6, 00 0, there by re pl ac i ng the st at e c ou rt ’ s j ud gm entw i th thatof the di stri ct c our t . S e e R 1- 1 a t5. S i m i l a r l y , the r e l i e f tha tM a y r e que s t e d de c l a r i ng thr e e pr i or9

s t a t e c our tj udgm e nt s unc ons t i tut i ona l on the gr ounds tha tthe s t a t e c our tr e l i e d on frau d u l en td o cu m en t s fro m th e d efen d an t s i n m ak i n g th o se j u d g m en t s, i s al so i ne xtr i c abl y i nt e r tw i ne d w i th pr i ors t a t e c our tj udgm e nt s be c aus e i n or de rf orthe di s tr i c tc our tt o gr a ntM a y hi s r e que s t e d r e l i e f , the c our tw oul d ha ve t o f i nd tha tthe s t a t e c our tw r ongl y de t e rm i ne d the doc um e nt s w e r e notf r audul e nt . S e e G oodm a n, 2 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 2 . I I I . CONCL US I ON B ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rtcan n o tg ran tM ay h i s req u est ed rel i ef w i th o u tfi rst d e t e rmi n i n g th a tth e s t a t e c o u r tw r o n g l y d e c i d e d th e i s s u e s b e f o r e i t , M a y ’ s c l a i ms ar e in ex tricab ly in tertw in ed w ith th e p rio r s tate co u rt ju d g m en ts. A s s u ch , M ay ’s com pl ai nti s barre d u nd erthe R oo ker- F el dm an do ctri ne and, there fore , the di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d e te rm in in g th a t it la c k e d s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . A cc ordi ng l y, w e A F F I R M.