### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 4, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L 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- 10299 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 2 5 0 0 - CV - T- 2 4 - TBM L E O N A R D F R A N C I S I N C O R V A I A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s H E L E N C L A U D E T T E I N C O R V A I A , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

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

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 4, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , M A R C U S an d P R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: L e ona r d F r a nc i s I nc orva i a , pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s a l of

hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 983 c i vi l r i ght s a c t i on f orl a c k of

j ur i s di c t i onSee Rooker v. F idelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct . 149, 150, 68 L . Ed. 362 1 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appe als v. Fe ldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476-82, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1311-15, 75 L . Ed. 2d 206 (1983). 2 u n d e rth e “R o o k e r - F e ld m a n d o c t r i n e . ” I n a “P e titio n f o rW r it o f

C e [ r ]tio r a r i,” 1 Incor va i a f

i l e d thi s a c t i on a ga i ns thi s f orme rw i f

e , H e l e n Cl a ud e tt e I nc orva i a, as ki ng the di stri ctcourtt o revi ew an order of the S ec on d D i stri ctC ou rtof A pp ea l of F l ori da af

fi rm i ng a fi nal j ud gm ent of di ss ol ut i on of m arri age. Incorvaia a ss er te d th a t th e d is s o lu tio n o r d e rv io la te d h is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts , th e S i x th A m e n d m e n t, a nd the C ontr a c t s C l a us e of the C ons t i tut i o n . T he di s tr i c tc our the l d tha tthe R ooke r - F e l dm a n doc tr i ne ba rr e d t h e i n st anta c t i on a nd di s m i s s e d the a c t i on f or l a c k of j ur i s di c t i on. O n ap p e a l, I n c o rv a iaa r g u e s th a t th e s ta te tr ia l c o u r tab u s e d its di sc re t i on by o rd er in g h i m t o p ayhi s f orm erw i fe $1 53 , 00 0 d es pi t e e vi dence that s he ha d pr e s e nt e d f

r a udul e ntf

i n an ci al evi de nc e dur i ng the di vor c e pr oc e e di ngs a nd a d o m e s tic v io le n c e in

ju n c tio n h e a r in g . W e r evi ew de no vo a di strict court ’ s di sm i ss al for l ac k o f s ubj ec t -m att er j u risd ic t i on . S ee W i l l i am s v. B es tB uy, 26 9 F . 3d 13 16 , 13 18 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A f t e rc a r e f u l r e v i e w o f

th e r e c o r d a n d th e p a r t i e s ’ b r i e f s , w e a f f i rm. Th e Ro o k e r - Fe l d ma n d o c tr i n e l i mi t s th e s u b j e c t - ma tt e r j u r i s d i c t i o n of f e de r a l di s tr i c t co u rt s a nd c our t s of appe a l ove rc e r t a i n m a tt e r s r e l a t e d t o pr e vi ous s t a t e c our tl i t i ga t i on. S e e R ooke r , 263 U . S . a t415- 16, 44 S . C t . a t150; F e l dm a n,3

46 0 U . S . at47 6-82 , 10 3 S . C t . at13 1 1 -15. U nd erthi s doctri ne, fe dera l court s, other tha n the U . S . S upr e m e C our t , “ ha ve no a uthor i ty t o r e vi e w t h e f i na l j udgm e nt s of s t a t e c our t s ” w hi c h i nvol ve the s a m e pa rt i e s a s the pa r t i e s i n the f e de r a l a c t i on, a nd thi s j ur i s di c t i ona l ba r“ e xt e nds notonl y t o c ons t i tut i ona l c l a i m s pr e s e nt e d or a dj udi c a t e d by a s t a t e c our t , b u ta l s o t o c l a i m s tha ta r e ‘ i ne xtr i c abl y i nt e r tw i ne d’ w i th a s t a t e c our tj udgm e nt . ” G oodm a n e x. rel G o o d m an v. S i pos , 259 F . 3d 1327, 1332 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ; s e e a l s o A m o s v . G l yn n C ounty B d. of T a x A s s e s s or s , 347 F .3 d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 6 6 n . 1 1 ( 1 1 t h C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . “A f e d e r a l c la im is in e x tr ic ab ly i nt e r tw i ne d w i th a s t a t e c our tj udgm e nti f the f e de ral cl ai m su c c e e ds onl y t o the e xt e nttha tthe s t a t e c our tw r ongl y de c i ded t h e i ss ue s be f or e i t . ” G oodm a n, 259 F . 3d a t1332. N e ve r the l e s s , “ e ve n i f a c l ai 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 t ’ s j udgm e nt , the doc tr i ne doe s notappl y i f the p l ai n t i ff ha d no

‘ r e a s onabl e oppor tuni ty t o r a i s e hi s f e de r a l c l a i m i n s t a t e pr oc e e di ngs . ’ ” I d. ( in te rn a l c ita tio n o m itte d ) . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr by f i nd i ng that it lack ed j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew I n c o rv a ia ’s a c tio n b a s e d o n t h e R o o k e r - F e ld m a n d o c tr in e . T h e p a r tie s in v o lv e d in the fe dera l and st at e a ct i on s a re the sa m e, and the st at e c ou rtent er ed a f i nal j ud g m en tbefore I ncorvai a f i l ed hi s f eder al ac t i on . M oreover, Incorvai a’ s f eder al c l a i m s w e r e “ 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 t ’ s f i na l j udgm e ntof4

d i s s o l u t i o n o f

h i s ma rr i a g e , a n d h e h a d a r e a s o n abl e oppor tu n i ty t o r a i s e h i s c l a i ms i n st at e c ou rt . If

w e w er e now t o h ol d thatthe F l ori da tri al cou rt’s alim o n y order w a s u n c o n s titu tio n a l, w e w o u ld “e f f e c tiv e ly n u llif

y ” th e s ta te c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. S ee P ow el l v. P ow el l , 80 F . 3d 46 4, 46 7 (11 th C i r. 19 96 ) ( ho l di ng that R oo ker- F el dm an barre d ‘ as appli ed’ chal l enge t o st at e c ou rtdeci si on t o d i stri bu t e a p o r t i o n o f

h u s b a n d ’ s n a v a l r e t i r e m e n tp a y t o wi f e u p o n d i v o r c e ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f irm . AF F I RME D.