12-3143 Morris v. Rosen 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NO T REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Cour t of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held 1 at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courth ouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 2 York, on the 28 th day of August, two thousand fourteen. 3 4 PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, 5 REENA RAGGI, 6 SUSAN L. CARNEY, 7 Circuit Judges. 8

---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- 9 PEGGY MORRIS, 10 Plaintiff-Appellant , 11 12 v. No. 12-3143-cv 13 14 SHELDON J. ROSEN, ESQ., MARIBEL TEJADA 15 BOLIVAR, ROCHDALE VILLAGE, INC., SHELDON 16 J. ROSEN, P.C., MICHAEL J. MOTTO, 17 Defendants-Appellees , 18 19 MICHAEL J. PINCKNEY, GILBERT O. BADILLO, 20 ANNE KATZ, LISA PETERSON, MARSHALL & 21 SHERIFF BUREAU, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 22 SERVICES, ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES, ALAN 23 BARNES, BRUCE A. SM ITH, LEROY COMRIE, 24 RUBEN WILLS, GREGOR Y MEEKS, MALCOLM 25 SMITH, SHIRLEY HUNTLEY, JOHN DOE, 1 TO 10, 26 JANE DOE, 1 TO 10, JONATHAN LIPPMAN, CHIEF 27 ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, FERN A. FISHER, 28 DEPUTY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE, NEW 29 YORK STATE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND 302 COMMUNITY RENEWAL, NEW YORK CITY 1 DEPARTMENT OF INVE STIGATION, NEW YORK 2 CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION, 3 GEORGE G. ESSOCK, NEW YORK CITY MARSHAL, 4 LINDA GIBBS, DEPUTY MAYOR, 5 Defendants. * 6

---------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------- 7 FOR APPELLANT: Peggy Lee Morri s, pro se, St. Albans, New York. 8

FOR APPELLEES: A. Michael Furman, Eric Daniel Mercurio, Furman 9 Kornfeld & Brennan LLP, New York, New York, for 10 Appellees Sheldon J. Rosen, P.C., Sheldon J. Rosen, 11 Esq., and Maribel Tejada Bolivar. 12 13 Robert Louis Bernstein, Jr., Baker Greenspan 14 & Bernstein, Bellmore, New York, for Appellee 15 Rochdale Village, Inc. 16 17 FOR AMICUS CURIAE Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General; Jason 18 STATE OF NEW YORK: Harrow, Assistant Solicitor General, for Eric T. 19 Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of 20 New York, New York, New York. 21 Appeal from a judgment of th e United States District Court for the Eastern District 22 of New York (John Gleeson, Judge ). 23 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERE D, ADJUDGED, 24 AND DECREED that the judgment entere d on July 3, 2012, is AFFIRMED. 25 Pro se plaintiff Peggy Morris, who sued for alleged due proce ss violations in her 26 eviction, appeals from the sua sponte dismissal of her complaint for la ck of subject matter 27 jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). We 28

review de novo a district court’s dismissa l of an action for lack of subject matter 29 jurisdiction based on Rooker-F eldman. See Hoblock v. Alba ny Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 30

* The Clerk of Court is dire cted to amend the official caption as shown above.3 422 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir. 2005). We assume familiarity with the facts and underlying 1 proceedings, which we referen ce only as necessary to expl ain our decision to affirm. 2 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction 3

over certain claims that seek review of adve rse state court judgments. See District of 4 Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (“[A] United States 5 District Court has no authority to review fi nal judgments of a state court in judicial 6 proceedings.”); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 26 3 U.S. 413, 416 (1923) (holding that “no 7 court of the United States other than [the S upreme Court] could entertain a proceeding to 8 reverse or modify [a state court’s] judgment for errors”). Specifically, 9

Rooker-Feldman directs federal courts to abstain from c onsidering claims 10 when four requirements are met: (1) the plaintiff lost in state court, (2) the 11 plaintiff complains of injuries caused by the state court judgment, (3) the 12 plaintiff invites district court review of that judgment, and (4) the state court 13 judgment was entered before the pl aintiff’s federal suit commenced. 14 15 McKithen v. Brown, 626 F. 3d 143, 154 (2d Cir. 2010); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi 16 Basic Indus., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). 17 On independent review, we conclude that the district court correctly ruled that 18 Morris’s claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman because (1) Morris lost in a state court 19 holdover proceeding; (2) her alle ged injuries stem directly from the state court’s adverse 20 judgment in that proceeding granting possession of the apartm ent occupied by Morris to 21 defendant Rochdale Village, In c. (“Rochdale”); (3) Morris’ s federal complaint invited 22 review of the state court judgment because her claim—that her due process rights were 23

violated when she was evicted from her Roch dale apartment—was expressly rejected by 244 the state court; and (4) Morris filed this action in the district court after the adverse state 1 court judgment had been rendered. 2 In sum, because Morris’s claimed injury stems from the adverse state court 3 holdover judgment, review of that judgme nt is precluded by Rooker-Feldman. See 4 Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 42 2 F.3d at 87 (stating that Rooker-Feldman 5 precludes federal consideration of claim “complaining of an injury caused by the state 6 judgment and seeking its reversal”). 7 We have considered Morris’s remaining arguments and find th em to be without 8 merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 9

FOR THE COURT: 10 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 11 12