FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 1, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 08 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :1 0- cv -0 16 46 -SDM- AEP KEITH VAN BENTHUYSEN, BEVERLY VANBENTH UYSEN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us STATE OF FLORIDA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, PRYOR an d F AY, Circ ui t Jud ge s. PER CURI AM:Keit h andBev erl y VanB en th uysen , pro ceed in g pr o s e , app eal th e d is tri ct co urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng th ei r ci vi l ri gh ts co m pl ai nt , whi ch was b ro ug htpu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3. Onap pe al , th e Van Ben th uysen s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt erre d i n c on cl ud in g t ha t t he ir c la im s wer e b arre d b y th e Roo ker -Feldma n 1 do ctrin e. Fo r th e rea so ns st at edbe lo w, we affi rm . I. InJu ly 201 0, the VanB en th uysen s fi le d a pr o s e § 1 98 3 c om pl ai ntag ai ns t th e St at e o f Fl or id a. Thei r co m pl ai ntwas b as edup on th e fo ll owi ng fact s. InJu ly 20 02 , th e Ci rcu itCo urt o f Po lkCo un ty, Fl or id a, en te reda te m po rary ord er i n a di vo rce p ro ceed in g b etween Keit h a ndJi ll Ann VanB en th uysen . The o rd er di rect edKeith t o m ak e m on th ly chi ldsupp ort an d a li m on y pa ym en ts to Ji ll Ann . No ju dg m en t o f di vo rce e ve r was en te redin th e Po lkCo un ty case. Acco rd in g t o th e Van Ben th uysen s’ § 1 98 3 c om pl ai nt , th e Po lkCo un ty j ud ge ha d b een

“ co -o pt ed ” b y

Ji ll Ann ’s att orne y . Whi le th e Po lkCo un ty case was pe nd in g, Kei th fil eda se pa rat e d iv or ce act io n i n Ok al oo saCo un ty, Fl or id a. Ji ll Ann was n ot ifi edof t he Okal oo saCo un ty cas e b utdi d n otpa rti ci pa te in th e p ro ceed in gs . In M arch 20 03 , th e Oka lo os a

Rooke r v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct . 149, 68 L .Ed. 362 (1923), and District 1 of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.C t. 1303, 75 L .Ed.2d 206 (1983). 2Co un ty Circu itCo urt i ss ue d afin al jud gm en t d is so lv in g t he m arri ag e b etween

Keit h a ndJi ll Ann . The co m pl ai ntex pl ai ne d t ha t t he Okal oo saCo un ty j ud gm en t nu ll ifi edth e ear li er Po lkCo un ty sup po rt o rd er. InApri l 2 00 3, Kei th an d B ev erl y were m arri edin Las Veg as , Neva da . One y ear l at er, the Okal oo saCo un ty Circu it Co urt g ran te d am ot io n b y Ji ll Ann ’s att orne y

to va cat e th e fi na l ju dg m en t o f di vo rce. The VanB en th uysen s’ com pl ai ntsetforth th ree c au se s o f act io n. In Co un t One , th e Van Ben th uysen s ar gu edth atth e st at e h advi ol at edKeit h’s Fi fth an d Fo urte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts by con ti nu in g t o g arn is h h is pa y ch eck s u nd er the Po lkCo un ty sup po rt o rd er, ev enth ou gh th atord er h adbe en“ subs um ed ” b y th e Oka lo os a Co un ty div or ce d ecre e. The Van Ben th uysen s fu rth er as se rte d t he st at e ha d v io la te d Kei th ’s Firs t Am en dm en t ri gh t t o t rav el by con fis cat in g h is pa ss po rt. InCo un t Two of t he co m pl ai nt , th e Van Ben th uysen s s ou gh t a d ecl arat ory jud gm en t t ha t the Okal oo saCo un ty div or ce jud gm en t was va li d a ndth atth e o rd er va cat in g t ha t ju dg m en t was “ ul tr a v ir es .” InCo un t Th ree, t he VanB en th uysen s so ug hta te m

po rary rest rai ni ng ord er an d apre li m in ary in jun ct io n d ire ct in g t he st at e to st op ga rn is hi ng Keith’s p ay ch eck s. The st at e m ov edto di sm is s t he co m pl ai nt , con te nd in g, am on g o th er thi ng s, th atth e Van Ben th uysen s’ cla im s wer e b arre d b y th e Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e. 3The di st ric t co urt g ran te d the st at e’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. Th e d is tri ctco urt

co nc lu de d t ha t the Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e p rev en te d i t fr om rev ie win g t he Po lk Co un ty j ud gm en t o rd eri ng Keit h t o p ay ch il d s up po rt. II. Whe th er a p la in ti ff’s co m pl ai ntis ba rredby the Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e is a le ga l que st io n t ha t we re vi ew de no vo . Doe v. Flo ri da Bar , 63 0 F .3d13 36 , 13 40 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e is a juri sd ic ti on al rul e th at pr ecl ud es lo wer fed eral co urts fro m rev ie win g s ta te co urt ju dg m en ts . Nic ho ls on v. Sh af e , 55 8 F .3d12 66 , 12 70 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). The Supr em e Co urt h as ex pl ai ne d th atth e Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e ap pl ie s t o “ cas es bro ug htby stat e-co urt l os ers co m pl ai ni ng of i nju rie s caus edby stat e-co urt ju dg m en ts ren de redbe fo re the di st ric t co urt p ro ceed in gs co m m en cedan d i nv it in g d is tri ctco urt re vi ew an d reject io n o f th os e jud gm en ts .” Exxo n Mo bi l Co rp . v. Sa ud i Ba si c In du stri es Co rp ., 54 4 U.S. 2 80 , 28 4, 1 25 S.Ct . 15 17 , 15 21 -2 2, 1 61 L.Ed.2d45 4 (2 00 5) . W e ha ve in te rp ret ed Exxo n Mo bi l to m ean th at Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e d oe s n ot ap pl y if t he st at e p ro ceed in gs are s ti ll on go in g a t t he ti m e th atth e fed eral act io n i s fil ed . Se e Ni ch ol

so n , 55 8 F .3dat 1 27 9. Here, i t i s u nc le ar wh ethe r th e st at e co urt d iv or ce p ro ceed in gs ha d co nc lu de d a t the ti m e th atth e Van Ben th uysen s fi le d t he ir c om pl ai ntin fed eral 4di st ric t co urt. Acco rd in g t o t he co m pl ai nt , no fin al jud gm en t ev er was en te redin th e Po lkCo un ty div or ce p ro ceed in g, an d t he fin al jud gm en t i n t he Okal oo sa Co un ty pro ceed in g was setasi de in 20 04 . Neverth el es s, we n eedno t d eci de whe th er the di st ric t co urt erredin ap pl y in g t he Roo ker -Feldma n do ctrin e b ecau se th e rec or d re ve al s atlea sttwo alt ern at iv e b as es fordi sm is si ng th e Van Ben th uysen s’ com

pl ai nt . Se e Gre en v. Jef

fe rs on Co un tyCo mm’n , 56 3 F .3d 12 43 , 12 45 n.3 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (n ot in g t ha t we m ay affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt o n an y gro un d s up po rte d b y

th e rec or d) . Firs t, the co m pl ai ntwas s ub

ject t o d is m is sa l be cau se th e Van Ben th uysen s b ro ug htth ei r cl ai m s d ire ct ly agai ns t t he Sta te of Fl or id a, whi ch is no t a p ro pe r de fen da ntin a § 1 98 3 a ct io n. Se e W il l v. Mi ch ig an Dep ’t o f Sta te Pol ic e , 49 1 U.S. 5 8, 7 1, 1 09 S.Ct . 23 04 , 23 12 , 10 5 L.Ed .2d45 (1 98 9) (ho ld in g t ha t a s ta te is no t a “ pe rs on ” li ab le to su itun de r § 1 98 3) . Seco nd , th e Van Ben th uysen s’ cla im s ar e b arre d b y th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Ina § 1 98 3 a ct io n, fe de ral co urts ap pl y th e fo rum

st at e’s res idua l s ta tu te of li m it at io ns for

pe rs on al in

jury acti on s. Bur to n v . Cit y o f Bel le Gla de , 17 8 F .3d 11 75 , 11 88 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). In F lo rid a, th e ap pl ic ab le li m it at io ns pe rio d i s fo ur y ears . Id
. ; Fl a.St at . § 9 5.1 1( 3) (p ). The s ta tu te of l im it at io ns be gi ns to run when

“ th e fac ts whi ch wou ldsupp ort a c au se of a ct io n a re ap pa ren t o r sh ou ldbe ap pa ren t t o ape rs on wit h areas on ab ly pru de ntreg ardforhi s ri gh ts .” Lov et t v. 5Ray , 32 7 F .3d11 81 , 11 82 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) .

Here, t he VanB en th uysen s’ com pl ai ntwas n otfil edun ti l J ul y 20 10 , eig ht y ears aft er the en try of the Po lkCo un ty sup po rt o rd er, an d m or e th ansi x years aft er the Okal oo saCo un ty Circu itCo urt en te redanord er v acat in g i ts earl ie r di vo rce ju dg m en t. Thu s, al l o f th e Van Ben th uysen s’ cla im s wer e b arre d b y th e fo ur -y ear s ta tu te of l im it at io ns . Se e Bur to n , 17 8 F .3dat 1 18 8; Fla .Sta t. § 9 5.1 1( 3) (p ). Acco rd in gl y , aft er re vi ew of th e rec or d a ndth e p art ie s’ bri efs , we affi rm . AFFIRMED.

6