Opinion · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
ASHBY v. POLINSKY, 328 Fed.Appx. 20 (2nd Cir. 2009)
328 Fed.Appx. 20
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 2009-05-06
- Topic
- general
ASHBY v. POLINSKY, 328 Fed.Appx. 20 (2nd Cir. 2009) Enid ASHBY, Barred, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gilbert POLINSKY, et al.,Defendants-Appellees. No. 07-1845-cv.United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. May 6, 2009. [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed ASHBY v. POLINSKY, 328 Fed.Appx. 20 (2nd Cir. 2009). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
ASHBY v. POLINSKY,328 Fed.Appx. 20(2nd Cir. 2009)
Enid ASHBY, Barred, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gilbert POLINSKY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-1845-cv.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
May 6, 2009.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Irizarry, J.).UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, ANDDECREEDthat the judgment of the district court beAFFIRMED.
Enid Ashby, Brooklyn, NY, pro se.
Daniel E. Sarzynski, Esq., Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham Coppola L.L.C., Buffalo, N.Y., for Appellees.
Daniel E. Sarzynski, Esq., Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf, Cunningham Coppola L.L.C., Buffalo, N.Y., for Appellees.
Present JON. O. NEWMAN, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, and BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.
SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Enid Ashby,pro se, appeals the district court dismissal of her42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to theRooker-Feldmandoctrine. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.Page 21
We reviewde novoa district court's dismissal pursuant to theRooker-Feldmandoctrine.SeeHoblock v. Albany County Bd. of Elections,422 F.3d 77,83(2d Cir. 2005). Under that doctrine, lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over claims that effectively challenge state-court judgments.See District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals v. Feldman,460 U.S. 462,486-87,103 S.Ct. 1303,75 L.Ed.2d 206(1983);Rooker v. Fidelity TrustCo.,263 U.S. 413,415-16,44 S.Ct. 149,68 L.Ed. 362(1923). Based on the Supreme Court's decision inExxonMobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp.,544 U.S. 280,125 S.Ct. 1517,161 L.Ed.2d 454(2005), we have set forth four requirements for the application ofRooker-Feldman: (1) "the federal-court plaintiff must have lost in state court;" (2) "the plaintiff must `complain[] of injuries caused by [a] state-court judgment;'" (3) "the plaintiff must `invit[e] district court review and rejection of [that] judgment;'" and (4) "the state-court judgment must have been `rendered before the district court proceedings commenced.'"See McKithen v. Brown,481 F.3d 89,97(2d Cir. 2007) (alterations in original) (quotingHoblock,422 F.3d at 85).
Here, the district court properly dismissed Ashby's complaint underRooker-Feldman.The record clearly shows that: (1) Ashby lost in New York state court; (2) the underlying injury she complained of was the foreclosure on her property caused by the state court order; (3) she challenged the validity of that proceeding, and requested that the district court find that the state court order was unconstitutional; and (4) she filed her complaint after the state court order had been entered. Accordingly, because all four factors were satisfied, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Ashby's complaint.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is herebyAFFIRMED.
- [EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] ↩