Court Opinion

ID: 9928361
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 17:01:32.738053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:00.605483
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10107   Document: 16-1    Date Filed: 01/31/2024   Page: 1 of 6

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10107
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       HEATHER NICOLE JOHNSTON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       MONICA MORRIS,
       JAMECIA DAVIS,
       NORTH BIRMINGHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT,
       DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
       JEFFERSON COUNTY,
       FAMILY COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, et al.,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10107        Document: 16-1        Date Filed: 01/31/2024        Page: 2 of 6

       2                         Opinion of the Court                     23-10107

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Alabama
                      D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-01055-AMM
                            ____________________

       Before BRANCH, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This is a child custody case. After Heather Johnston lost
       custody of her daughter, K.J., in Alabama family court and her
       appeal was dismissed, Johnston brought this pro se lawsuit. She
       alleges that various actors, including personnel in the Alabama
       Department of Human Resources (DHR), the North Birmingham
       Police Department, and the Family Court of Jefferson County,
       “human trafficked” her daughter and conspired to deprive
       Johnston of custody. Johnston alleges that these acts violated
       several federal statutes and amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
       The district court sua sponte dismissed her complaint for lack of
       subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We
       affirm the dismissal on other jurisdictional grounds: Johnston lacks
       Article III standing.
                                  I.      Background
               Custody proceedings involving Johnston’s daughter, K.J.,
       began on September 10, 2020, when Monica Morris 1 filed a petition
       in the Juvenile Court of Jefferson County requesting custody of K.J.

       1 Morris and K.J. are unrelated. Morris appears to have been a family friend.
USCA11 Case: 23-10107        Document: 16-1        Date Filed: 01/31/2024        Page: 3 of 6

       23-10107                  Opinion of the Court                              3

       Then, on November 10, 2020, K.J.’s guardian ad litem filed a motion
       asserting that K.J.’s home life had deteriorated, and an immediate
       hearing was necessary to protect her safety. Three days later, K.J.
       ran away from home and stayed with Morris. She was then placed
       in protective custody by the Birmingham Police Department.
             The family court held a hearing on July 19, 2021, granting
       custody to Morris but allowing Johnston visitation rights. Johnston
       appealed this decision to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals,
       which dismissed her case. Johnston filed this federal case on
       August 22, 2022.
               Johnston’s amended complaint alleged that Morris and
       Jamecia Davis conspired to have Morris harbor K.J., which
       Johnston alleged was “[h]uman trafficking.” She also alleged that
       various employees of the DHR and the Family Court of Jefferson
       County, Officer Brown from the North Birmingham Police
       Department, and K.J.’s guardian ad litem, assisted in the human
       trafficking. Further, she alleged that these defendants lied to the
       family court, and, in some instances, conspired with the family
       court to prevent Johnston from having custody over her daughter.
              Johnston alleges that these acts violated several federal
       statutes and amendments to the U.S. Constitution. 2 As for relief,
       Johnston’s original complaint requested attorneys’ fees and that the

       2 As to federal statutes, Johnston alleged violations of 18 U.S.C §§ 242, 371,

       792, 1001, 1503, and 1590. As to the Constitution, Johnston alleged violations
       of amendments IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIII, and IX.
USCA11 Case: 23-10107      Document: 16-1       Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10107

       court “immediately remove [K.J.] from the custody of Monica
       Morris . . . .” But in her amended complaint, Johnston did not
       request damages and stated many times that she “is not seeking a
       reversal of the trial court’s decision but she is asking for her and her
       children’s constitutional rights to be protected and that this court
       follow the laws of the United States and enforce the laws of the
       United States and the constitution.”
             The district court dismissed Johnston’s amended complaint
       sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
       Rooker-Feldman doctrine (albeit without referencing the doctrine by
       name). It held that Johnston’s claims did not seek damages and
       ultimately sought relief from a state court judgment, which is
       impermissible under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. But even if
       Johnston had asked for damages, the district court held that
       Johnston’s claim would be subject to dismissal under 28
       U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for being a frivolous action. Johnston appealed.
                                 II.    Discussion
               This Court reviews de novo a district court’s determination
       that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th
       1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2021). “Federal courts have an independent
       obligation to ensure that subject-matter jurisdiction exists before
       reaching the merits of a dispute.” Jacobson v. Florida Sec. of State,
       974 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020). “If at any point a federal court
       discovers a lack of jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.” Id.
             While the district court dismissed Johnston’s claim under
       the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we affirm the dismissal for a separate
USCA11 Case: 23-10107      Document: 16-1      Date Filed: 01/31/2024     Page: 5 of 6

       23-10107               Opinion of the Court                          5

       jurisdictional reason—Johnston lacks standing. Specifically, she
       has not requested relief likely to redress her alleged injury. Article
       III of the Constitution limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of
       federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III,
       § 2. “To have a case or controversy, a litigant must establish that
       [s]he has standing,” which requires proof of three elements. United
       States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 971 (11th Cir. 2019). The litigant
       must prove (1) an injury in fact that (2) is fairly traceable to the
       challenged action of the defendant and (3) is likely to be redressed
       by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–
       61 (1992). As to redressability, we must be able “to ascertain from
       the record whether the relief requested is likely to redress the
       alleged injury.” Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of
       Florida, 641 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2011).
               Johnston’s requested relief is that “her and her children’s
       constitutional rights . . . be protected and that this court follow the
       laws of the United States and enforce the laws of the United States
       and the constitution.” She makes clear that she “is not seeking a
       reversal of the [state] trial court’s decision” depriving her of
       custody of K.J., and she does not request damages or injunctive
       relief. Thus, because mere “vindication of the rule of law . . . . does
       not suffice” for redressability, and Johnston has not requested any
       other relief likely to redress her alleged injury, we must dismiss her
USCA11 Case: 23-10107         Document: 16-1        Date Filed: 01/31/2024         Page: 6 of 6

       6                         Opinion of the Court                       23-10107

       claim for lack of standing. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
       523 U.S. 83, 106–07 (1998). 3
              AFFIRMED.

       3 If Johnston had—as she did in her original complaint—requested that we

       “immediately remove [K.J.] from the custody of Monica Morris,” she would
       run headfirst into the Rooker-Feldman problem that the district court cited. The
       Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal when a losing state court litigant
       calls on a district court to modify or overturn an injurious state-court
       judgment. Behr, 8 F.4th at 1210. As the district court held, asking the court to
       overturn the state court’s custody decision goes to the heart of the state court
       judgment and runs headlong into Rooker-Feldman.