“28 U.S.C. § 1257 vests the United States Supreme Court with exclusive ‘jurisdiction over appeals from final state-court judgments.’” (quoting Lance, 546 U.S. at 463)
How later courts described this case
- “28 U.S.C. § 1257 vests the United States Supreme Court with exclusive ‘jurisdiction over appeals from final state-court judgments.’” (quoting Lance, 546 U.S. at 463)
- “the proper forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling is the United States Supreme Court, on appeal of the highest state court’s final judgment.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
JOHN DOE, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY )
BOARD NO. 21634, )
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 20-11359-DPW
)
SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY BOARD, )
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
July 23, 2020
On July 17, 2020, a pro se plaintiff, styling himself John
Doe, filed this lawsuit claiming an appeal from a decision of
the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Doe v. Sex Offender
Registry Board, 484 Mass. 1046 (May 15, 2020) (affirming
judgment of single justice dismissing Doe’s complaint seeking
relief from his obligation to register with the Sex Offender
Registry Board). Doe contends that the state court’s decision
is erroneous and violates his constitutional rights.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives this court of subject
matter jurisdiction over Doe’s challenge to the state court
judgment. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). “Under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, ‘lower federal courts are precluded
from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court
judgments.’” Tyler v. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,
914 F.3d 47, 50 (1st Cir. 2019) (quoting Lance v. Dennis, 546
U.S. 459, 463 (2006)). The only federal court with authority to
afford direct review of such a final judgment by a state court
is the United States Supreme Court. Silva v. Massachusetts, 351
Fed.Appx. 450, 454 (1st Cir. 2009) (“28 U.S.C. § 1257 vests the
United States Supreme Court with exclusive ‘jurisdiction over
appeals from final state-court judgments.’” (quoting Lance, 546
U.S. at 463)); see also Davison v. Gov't of P.R.-P.R.
Firefighters Corps., 471 F.3d 220, 223 (1st Cir. 2006) (“the
proper forum for challenging an unlawful state court ruling is
the United States Supreme Court, on appeal of the highest state
court’s final judgment.”).
Here, Doe seeks federal district court review of the state
court ruling because he believes that the ruling is erroneous
and injurious to him. However, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
deprives this court of jurisdiction to provide Doe the relief he
seeks. "If the court determines at any time that it lacks
subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
Accordingly, it is hereby Ordered that this action is
dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
The Clerk shall enter a separate and final order of
dismissal.
/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE