Court Opinion

ID: 9377810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 20:00:36.78678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:17.026975
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13901   Document: 52-1    Date Filed: 03/08/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 21-13901
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       GREGORY KEVIN SAMUELS,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       WMC MORTGAGE, LLC,
       GE HOLDINGS INC.,
       GQ HOLDING 1329, LLC,
       MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS,
       NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA, et al.,

                                               Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 21-13901        Document: 52-1        Date Filed: 03/08/2023        Page: 2 of 4

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     21-13901

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-00870-RBD-LRH
                            ____________________

       Before GRANT, ANDERSON, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Gregory Samuels, proceeding pro se,1 appeals the district
       court’s dismissal -- for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction -- of Sam-
       uels’s civil action. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
               In 2021, Samuels filed pro se this civil action in the district
       court. In his amended complaint, Samuels named seven defend-
       ants: (1) WMC Mortgage LLC; (2) GE Holdings Inc.; (3) GQ Hold-
       ings 1329, LLC; (4) Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.;
       (5) the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida; (6) Kondaur Capital
       Corporation; and (7) Tyler Stiglich. Briefly stated, Samuels pur-
       ported to assert claims against defendants for fraud and for viola-
       tion of his due-process rights stemming from the state-court fore-
       closure proceedings on his home.
             The Ninth Judicial Circuit -- as a party defendant -- moved
       to dismiss Samuels’s amended complaint on various grounds,

       1 We read liberally appellate briefs filed by pro se litigants. See Timson v.
       Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). We also construe liberally pro se
       pleadings. See Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.
       1998).
USCA11 Case: 21-13901        Document: 52-1         Date Filed: 03/08/2023        Page: 3 of 4

       21-13901                  Opinion of the Court                               3

       including for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ.
       P. 12(b)(1).
              The district court granted the Ninth Judicial Circuit’s mo-
       tion. The district court concluded that it, as a federal court, lacked
       subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Samuels’s challenges to the
       state foreclosure proceedings. The district court thus dismissed
       without prejudice Samuels’s civil action as barred by the Rooker-
       Feldman2 doctrine. 3 This appeal followed.
               On appeal, Samuels argues chiefly that the district court
       erred in dismissing his complaint without first addressing his claims
       on the merits: conduct Samuels says violated due process and his
       right to a jury trial. According to Samuels, “justice” outweighs “ju-
       dicial expedience” such that the district court should have exercised
       its discretion under Rule 12(i) and deferred ruling on the Ninth Ju-
       dicial Circuit’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion until a trial on the merits.
       Samuels also asserts that his amended complaint stated a claim for
       relief and was, thus, not subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
       12(b)(6).
              Construed liberally, Samuels’s pro se appellate brief chal-
       lenges only the timing of the district court’s ruling on the Rule
       12(b)(1) motion. We reject Samuels’s timing argument: a federal

       2 Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feld-
       man, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).
       3 The district court also noted that it had already dismissed two substantially
       similar lawsuits filed by Samuels against many of the same defendants.
USCA11 Case: 21-13901      Document: 52-1     Date Filed: 03/08/2023     Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13901

       court must “inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction
       at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” See Univ. of S.
       Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
              Samuels raises no substantive argument challenging the cor-
       rectness of the district court’s determination that the district court
       lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Samuels’s claims or that
       Samuels’s claims were barred by Rooker-Feldman. Samuels has
       thus abandoned the argument that the district court concluded in-
       correctly that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. See Sapuppo v.
       Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (“A
       party fails to adequately ‘brief’ a claim when he does not ‘plainly
       and prominently’ raise it, ‘for instance by devoting a discrete sec-
       tion of his argument to those claims.’”); Timson v. Sampson, 518
       F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While we read briefs filed by pro se
       litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant
       are deemed abandoned.” (citations omitted)).
              Because Samuels has failed to challenge the only basis for
       the district court’s order of dismissal, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.