Case Name: Lorenzo WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden, Lloyd WALLACE, Captain, Derwin Halbrooks, Lieutenant, Correction Officers at Limestone Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-28
Citations: 511 F. App'x 835
Docket Number: No. 12-13968
Parties: Lorenzo WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden, Lloyd WALLACE, Captain, Derwin Halbrooks, Lieutenant, Correction Officers at Limestone Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 835–835

Head Matter:
Lorenzo WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden, Lloyd WALLACE, Captain, Derwin Halbrooks, Lieutenant, Correction Officers at Limestone Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-13968
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 28, 2013.
Lorenzo Watkins, Harvest, AL, pro se.
Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General’s Office, Todd E. Hughes, Attorney General’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before WILSON, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Watkins, an Alabama prisoner, appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint against Warden Lloyd Wallace and other officers at the Limestone Correctional Facility. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed Watkins's complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). We affirm.
The district court did not err by dismissing Watkins's complaint. Watkins's complaint is barred by res judicata. See Green v. Jefferson Cnty. Comm'n, 563 F.3d 1243, 1252 (11th Cir.2009). An Alabama court earlier entered a summary judgment against Watkins's same complaint that the same defendants violated his constitutional rights, and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed that judgment, Watkins v. Mitchem, 97 So.3d 815 (Ala.Civ.App.2011). Watkins argues that res judicata does not bar his federal complaint, but under Alabama law "[a] summary judgment acts as a judgment on the merits," Ex parte Jefferson Cnty., 656 So.2d 382, 385 (Ala.1995). The district court also lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the judgment of the state court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basie Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005); D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Watkins's complaint.