[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11931

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-01619-LCB

CARL MICHAEL SEIBERT, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JEREMY MCINTIRE,

personal capacity and his capacity as an attorney, 

ROMAN SHAUL, 

General Counsel, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(May 5, 2021)

Before MARTIN, JORDAN, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-11931 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

Carl Michael Seibert appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the RookerFeldman doctrine.1

 The district court properly dismissed Seibert’s complaint and 

we affirm.

I.

Seibert was suspended from practicing law in Alabama in 2011 and was 

subsequently disbarred. Seibert appealed the Alabama State Bar Association’s 

(“the Bar”) decision to disbar him, but the Alabama Supreme Court summarily 

affirmed. Seibert v. Ala. State Bar, 154 So. 3d 1097, 1097 (Table) (Ala. 2012).

Seibert filed suit in federal district court in October 2019, alleging that the

Bar violated his constitutional rights when it disbarred him.2

 As Seibert himself 

admits, the factual allegations in his complaint are rambling, to say the least. But 

we can discern the facts underlying Seibert’s disbarment from the record. Seibert 

was accused of knowingly allowing clients to lie in court proceedings; knowingly 

allowing a disbarred attorney to perform legal work for Seibert’s law firm; and 

intentionally engaging in unethical and illegal conduct on behalf of a bail bonding 

company. According to Seibert, these accusations were false. As such, he says the 

1 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 

460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303 (1983).

2 As reflected in the case caption, Seibert did not name the Alabama State Bar 

Association as a defendant. He instead named Jeremy McIntire, the Assistant General Counsel 

who represented the Bar in the proceedings, and Roman Shaul, General Counsel for the Bar. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11931 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

Bar’s decision to disbar him was based on perjured testimony and false evidence, 

which violates his due process rights. 

The Bar moved to dismiss Seibert’s complaint. It argued, among other 

things, that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter under the RookerFeldman doctrine. This doctrine generally prohibits federal district courts from 

reviewing a final state court decision, insofar as the United States Supreme Court 

is the only federal court with jurisdiction to review decisions of a state’s highest 

court. Doe v. Fla. Bar, 630 F.3d 1336, 1340 (11th Cir. 2011). The district court 

agreed and granted the Bar’s motion to dismiss. 

Seibert filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court summarily 

denied. Seibert timely appealed. 

II.

We review de novo a district court’s decision that the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine deprives it of subject matter jurisdiction. Doe, 630 F.3d at 1340. The 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a jurisdictional rule created by the Supreme Court that 

precludes federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments. Alvarez v. 

Att’y Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir. 2012). “This is because ‘28 

U.S.C. § 1257, as long interpreted, vests authority to review a state court judgment 

solely in the Supreme Court.’” Id. (alterations adopted) (quoting Exxon Mobil 

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1526

USCA11 Case: 20-11931 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

(2005)). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is confined to cases . . . brought by statecourt losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered 

before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review 

and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 284, 125 S. Ct. at 

1521–22.

Seibert’s case falls under this definition. First, challenges in federal district 

courts to decisions by state supreme courts disciplining attorneys for misconduct or 

ruling on bar applicants’ claims are generally precluded by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. See Doe, 630 F.3d at 1341 (holding plaintiff’s challenges “to the Florida 

Bar’s rules regarding confidential peer review are clearly barred by RookerFeldman”); Berman v. Fla. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 794 F.2d 1529, 1530 (11th Cir. 

1986) (per curiam) (holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over bar 

applicant’s claim of unlawful denial of admission to a particular bar); Dale v. 

Moore, 121 F.3d 624, 627 (11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (“[I]t is clear that the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids frustrated Florida bar applicants from seeking an 

effective reversal of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in federal district 

court.”); see also Scott v. Frankel, 562 F. App’x 950, 953 (11th Cir. 2014) (per 

curiam) (unpublished) (“Scott was a ‘state-court loser’ based on the Florida 

Supreme Court’s decision to suspend him from the practice of law for three 

years.”); Castro v. Lewis, 777 F. App’x 401, 405 (11th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) 

USCA11 Case: 20-11931 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

(unpublished) (collecting cases). Seibert nonetheless urges us to conclude his case 

is the exception. 

In short, if Seibert were to succeed on his claim before the district court, it 

“would effectively nullify” the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision. Alvarez, 679 

F.3d at 1262–63 (quotation marks omitted). Thus the issue before the district court 

was inextricably intertwined with the state court judgment. Id. The district court 

correctly dismissed Seibert’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-11931 Date Filed: 05/05/2021 Page: 5 of 5