Opinion ID: 2829869
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of the Rooker–Feldman Doctrine

Text: The Rooker–Feldman doctrine 2 establishes a limit on federal jurisdiction under the “basic theory . . . that only the United States Supreme Court has been given jurisdiction to review a state-court decision.” 18B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4469.1 (2d ed. 2014). The Supreme Court observed in Exxon Mobil that lower federal courts have “sometimes . . . construed [the doctrine] to extend far beyond the contours of the Rooker and Feldman cases,” and the Court clarified the narrow scope of the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283–84 (2005). The Rooker–Feldman doctrine is confined to only those cases “[1] brought by state-court losers [2] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments [3] rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and [4] inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Id. at 284. As the Third Circuit has observed, “[t]he second and fourth requirements are the key to determining whether a federal suit presents an independent, non-barred claim.” Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159, 166 (3d Cir. 2010). Examining the second requirement—“injuries caused by state-court judgments”—in Truong, we explained that a “hallmark of the Rooker–Feldman inquiry is the source of the federal plaintiff’s alleged injury.” 717 F.3d at 382. “[I]f a federal plaintiff asserts as a legal wrong an allegedly erroneous decision by a state court,” then, we said, “Rooker–Feldman bars subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court.” Id. at 382–83. Truong approvingly discussed an unpublished Fifth Circuit opinion in which that panel held that Rooker–Feldman barred a claim that a state child-support order is void, but 2The doctrine is named for the two Supreme Court cases from which it is derived: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). 5 Case: 14-40259 Document: 00513164640 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/21/2015 No. 14-40259 not “a claim that state government defendants violated the federal plaintiffs’ constitutional rights in the course of enforcing the order.” Id. at 383 (emphasis added) (discussing Mosley v. Bowie Cnty., Tex., 275 F. App’x 327, 328–29 (5th