[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-12271

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JEFFREY LANCE HILL, SR., 

individually; Aggrieved Party and as Real Party in

Interest of El Rancho No Tengo, Inc., 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LEANDRA G. JOHNSON, 

individually & officially,

GREGORY S. PARKER, 

individually & officially, 

WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, III, 

individually & officially,

JOEL F. FOREMAN, 

individually and as Columbia County attorney,

USCA11 Case: 21-12271 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 1 of 5
2 Opinion of the Court 21-12271

JENNIFER B. SPRINGFIELD, 

individually and officially, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:20-cv-00895-TJC-PDB

____________________

Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Hill, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s 

dismissal with prejudice of his pro se civil rights complaint as 

barred by the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine. Additionally, Hill

appeals the district court’s entry of an injunction prohibiting him

from filing any suit in the Middle District of Florida without first 

1 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine derives from Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 

413 (1923), and D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 

Collectively, “[t]hose cases held that state court litigants do not have a right of 

appeal in the lower federal courts; they cannot come to federal district courts 

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.” Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1209–10 (11th 

Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted).

USCA11 Case: 21-12271 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 2 of 5
21-12271 Opinion of the Court 3

obtaining leave of the court. Because the district court did not 

review each of Hill’s individual claims to determine whether the 

Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred each claim as required, we vacate 

the district court’s decision and the related injunction and remand 

for further proceedings.

This suit is one of a series of suits that Hill has filed against

three Florida judges (“the judicial defendants”), two Florida 

attorneys, the Suwannee River Water Management District (“the 

District”), Columbia County, Florida, Columbia County’sreceiver, 

and the City of Lake City, Florida, related to several prior Florida 

state court judgments entered against his farm. As we summarized 

in a prior case, 

[I]n 2006, the District brought a lawsuit in Florida 

state court against Hill's Farm, El Rancho No Tengo, 

Inc., alleging that the farm had repaired a pipe on the 

property without obtaining the proper permits. The 

District prevailed in that action, and over the years 

several civil judgments have been entered against the 

farm, imposing civil penalties and authorizing the 

District to allow water to flow onto Hill's land. . . . 

Hill has unsuccessfully attempted to obtain relief in 

matters related to those judgments in two state court 

cases, two bankruptcy cases, and various federal and 

state appeal processes.

Hill v. Johnson, 787 F. App’x 604, 605 (11th Cir. 2019) 

(unpublished).

USCA11 Case: 21-12271 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 3 of 5
4 Opinion of the Court 21-12271

In the underlying complaint, Hill asserted ten claims under 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1982, 1983, and 1985, and the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, 

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 

The defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing among other 

grounds, that Hill’s claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. After summarizing the procedural history of Hill’s 

various legal proceedings, the district court concluded that the 

instant “case is also barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,” and 

granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss.2 

However, the district court did not have the benefit of our 

decision in Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206 (11th Cir. 2021), which 

issued three months after the district court’s ruling in this case. 

Behr clarified the proper application of the Rooker-Feldman 

doctrine, including that the doctrine requires a claim-by-claim 

approach to determine “whether resolution of each individual 

claim requires review and rejection of a state court judgment.” Id.

at 1213. The district court did not conduct such a targeted 

approach when holding that Hill’s case was barred under RookerFeldman. Therefore, we vacate the dismissal and remand the case 

to the district court. On remand, the district court may opt to 

conduct the Behr analysis to determine if the Rooker-Feldman

2 Additionally, the district court found that Hill had “failed to comply with 

multiple directives from the Court to stop re-litigating previously decided 

claims,” and it enjoined Hill from filing any lawsuit in the Middle District of 

Florida without first obtaining leave of the court. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12271 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 4 of 5
21-12271 Opinion of the Court 5

doctrine bars each of Hill’s claims.3 Alternatively, the district court 

may consider the other defenses asserted in the defendants’ 

motions to dismiss, including res judicata, collateral estoppel, and 

immunity grounds. 

Furthermore, because one of the factors the district court 

considered in issuing the pre-filing injunction was that the 

defendants “succeed[ed] on the merits,” we vacate the injunction. 

The district court may in its discretion determine on remand 

whether a pre-filing injunction is warranted.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

 

3 We express no opinion on whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars any 

of Hill’s claims. 

USCA11 Case: 21-12271 Date Filed: 08/08/2022 Page: 5 of 5