Derek Thomas v. John Bartholomew, IV

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 1 of 27

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13683

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

DEREK THOMAS,

individually, and in his capacity

as administrator of the estate of

Emma Jean Clark,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN BARTHOLOMEW, IV,

DANIEL CHARLES DAVIS,

HARLAND GRIFFITH,

ROY E. BARNES,

MARIE BARNES, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 2 of 27

2 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01034-LMM

____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Derek Thomas was living in a house that his de-

ceased mother had rented. When he missed a rent payment, the

landlord, Barnes Land and Investment Group, LLC (“BLI”), filed a

dispossessory action against his mother’s estate. Thomas, proceed-

ing pro se, filed an answer in the dispossessory action and brought

against BLI counterclaims arising out of its efforts to remove him

from the property. The state court ruled in favor of BLI and dis-

missed Thomas’s counterclaims with prejudice. Thomas, still pro-

ceeding pro se, then filed a state court lawsuit against BLI as well as

other individuals associated with it, again bringing claims arising

out of BLI’s attempt to remove him from the property. In the sec-

ond lawsuit, the state court granted summary judgment to the de-

fendants.

Next, Thomas, again proceeding pro se, filed this action in

federal court against three state court judges who presided over the

state court lawsuits, a clerk for the Georgia Court of Appeals who

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 3 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 3

issued orders dismissing his appeals from the state court lawsuits,

BLI, several individuals associated with BLI, BLI’s attorneys in the

state court actions, and their law firm. The district court dismissed

the lawsuit. After careful consideration, we affirm.

I.

In 2007, Emma Jean Clark, Thomas’s mother, rented a home

in Mableton, Georgia, from BLI. When Clark rented the property,

she signed a written lease agreement. The lease renewed yearly.

In May 2018, Clark passed away. Thomas says that after his

mother’s death, he and BLI entered into an oral contract that al-

lowed him to continue to live at the home in exchange for $1,075

in rent each month.

In October 2018, Thomas missed a rent payment. BLI di-

rected Daniel Davis, one of its employees, to enter the rental home

and change the locks. Davis and another BLI employee, Harland

Griffith, allegedly moved and destroyed Thomas’s personal prop-

erty inside the home.

Litigation followed. On October 31, 2018, BLI filed a dispos-

sessory action against Clark’s estate in Cobb County Magistrate

Court (the “first lawsuit”). In this lawsuit, BLI was represented by

John Bevis and John Bartholomew of the Barnes Law Group.

Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed an answer and brought

counterclaims against BLI for wrongful eviction, illegal self-help

and forcible eviction, trespass, conversion, and taking of personal

property. The counterclaims arose out of BLI’s attempts to remove

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 4 of 27

4 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

him from the property. He alleged that by changing the locks, BLI

had violated his federal constitutional rights. He demanded $28,000

in damages for his counterclaims. Because Thomas sought more

than $15,000 in damages, Judge Michael McLaughlin transferred

the case to Cobb County State Court. See O.C.G.A. § 15-10-2(5)

(limiting magistrate court’s jurisdiction to matters where the

amount demanded “does not exceed $15,000.00”).

In Cobb County State Court, the case was assigned to Judge

David Darden. At a hearing before Darden, Thomas says, Bevis

misrepresented facts about whether he had paid rent, received per-

mission to occupy the property, or could represent his mother’s

estate.

Darden granted BLI a dispossessory warrant, struck

Thomas’s answer, and dismissed his counterclaims. Darden deter-

mined, based on Thomas’s testimony at the hearing, that he was

not an occupant or tenant of the property and had not been ap-

pointed as the administrator of his mother’s estate. Given these

conclusions, Darden ruled that Thomas lacked standing to chal-

lenge the dispossessory action or raise counterclaims.

Thomas filed a motion to vacate and set aside, which

Darden denied. He filed two notices of appeal in state court. But

when he failed to pay the costs associated with transmitting the

record on appeal, Darden dismissed the appeals. See id. § 5-6-48(c)

(permitting a trial court to dismiss an appeal when “there has been

an unreasonable delay in the transmission of the record to the ap-

pellate court, and it is seen that the delay was inexcusable and was

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 5 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 5

caused by the failure of a party to pay costs in the trial court or file

an affidavit of indigence”). Thomas also filed additional motions in

the state court to vacate Darden’s orders. The successive motions

to vacate were denied by Darden or Judge Eric Brewton, who suc-

ceeded Darden upon his retirement.

In May 2019, Thomas, again proceeding pro se, filed a new

lawsuit in Cobb County Superior Court (the “second lawsuit”). He

named as defendants BLI; Roy Barnes, BLI’s sole member; Marie

Barnes, Roy’s wife who assisted in BLI’s operation; Davis; Griffith;

and John Doe. Thomas asserted that BLI and the other defendants

had wrongfully denied him access to the rental house and de-

stroyed his personal belongings. He brought claims for wrongful

eviction, trespass, intentional interference with quiet enjoyment of

personal property, nuisance, intentional deprivation of personal

property, conversion, theft and damage to personal property, in-

tentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of

emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy.

Bevis and Bartholomew again represented the defendants.

The superior court granted summary judgment to the de-

fendants. It concluded that Thomas’s claims were barred by claim

preclusion.1 The court explained that claim preclusion barred a

claim when three requirements were met: “(1) identity of the cause

of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous

1 The court also determined in the alternative that Thomas’s claims were

barred by issue preclusion. Because that determination is not relevant to the

issues before us in this appeal, we discuss it no further.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 6 of 27

6 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Doc. 31-4 at 4. 2 The court concluded that all three requirements

were satisfied.

First, the court determined that Thomas’s claims in the sec-

ond lawsuit and the counterclaims in the first lawsuit involved

identical causes of action. It explained that all of Thomas’s claims

in the second lawsuit were “the same or similar to his dispossessory

counterclaims” because they concerned whether he “was wrong-

fully evicted from his late mother’s home,” and whether the “De-

fendants converted his personal property.” Id. at 5. The court

acknowledged that some of Thomas’s claims in the second lawsuit

were “newly-titled causes of actions” that were not directly raised

in his counterclaims in the first lawsuit. Id. But the court deter-

mined these claims arose “from the same transaction or occurrence

as the [f]irst [l]awsuit – the dispute over [Thomas’s] various rights

to real and personal property located at [the rental house] during

the same short period of time in 2018.” Id. Because these claims

could have been raised in the counterclaims to the first lawsuit, the

court concluded that the causes of action were identical for claim-

preclusion purposes.

Second, the court concluded that the two lawsuits involved

identical parties or their privies. Both the counterclaims in the first

lawsuit and the claims in the second lawsuit were brought against

BLI. The court acknowledged that Thomas added new defendants

2 “Doc.” numbers refer to the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 7 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 7

in the second action—Roy Barnes, Marie Barnes, Davis, and Grif-

fith—but it concluded that the new defendants were in privity with

BLI.

Third, the court determined that the first lawsuit had been

adjudicated on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. It

explained that the state court in the first lawsuit had dismissed

Thomas’s counterclaims with prejudice. Given the dismissal with

prejudice and because the state court had jurisdiction over the ac-

tion, the third requirement for claim preclusion was satisfied.

Thomas attempted several times to appeal the superior

court’s decision in the second lawsuit. He filed a first notice of ap-

peal in March 2021. But the Georgia Court of Appeals dismissed it

as untimely. He later filed another notice of appeal, which the

Georgia Court of Appeals again dismissed. Thomas also filed two

applications seeking discretionary review from the Georgia Court

of Appeals. The Georgia Court of Appeals denied both applica-

tions. All the orders from the Georgia Court of Appeals were

signed by Stephen Castlen, a clerk for the Court.

In March 2023, Thomas filed this lawsuit. He named BLI,

Roy Barnes, Marie Barnes, Davis, Griffith, Bevis, Bartholomew,

Barnes Law Group, McLaughlin, Darden, Brewton, and Castlen as

defendants. In Counts One through Eight, he brought claims aris-

ing under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against McLaughlin, Darden, and

Brewton (collectively, the “Judge Defendants”) based on orders

they entered in the first lawsuit. In Count Nine, he brought a claim

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 8 of 27

8 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

against Castlen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on orders that Castlen

signed as a clerk of the Georgia Court of Appeals.

In the complaint, Thomas also raised several counts alleging

that BLI, Barnes Law Group, Roy Barnes, Bartholomew, and/or

Bevis engaged in fraudulent and conspiratorial conduct while liti-

gating the state court cases. In Counts 10 and 11, he alleged that

Barnes Law Group, Bartholomew, and Bevis engaged in fraud by

making misrepresentations to and concealing facts from the court

in the first and second lawsuits. He purported to bring these two

claims under state, not federal, law.

In Count 12, Thomas asserted that Bevis was liable under

§ 1983 because he colluded with Darden and engaged in a civil con-

spiracy to bar Thomas from appealing the first lawsuit. To support

his conspiracy claim, he pointed to an exchange that occurred dur-

ing a hearing in the first lawsuit when Darden was deciding

whether to dismiss Thomas’s appeal based on his failure to pay

costs associated with transmitting the record on appeal. In the ex-

change, Darden asked Bevis a legal question about BLI’s position,

which Bevis answered.

In Count 13, Thomas brought claims against BLI, Barnes

Law Group, Roy Barnes, Bartholomew, and Bevis. He alleged that

these defendants violated the federal Racketeering Influenced and

Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”) and conspired to violate the

federal RICO statute. In this count, he also purported to bring state

law claims alleging that these defendants violated Georgia’s RICO

statute, conspired to violate Georgia’s RICO statute, made

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 9 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 9

fraudulent misrepresentations, suppressed and concealed material

facts, and committed fraud.

For the federal RICO claims, Thomas asserted that the pred-

icate acts of racketeering activity were mail or wire fraud. He al-

leged that the acts of mail or wire fraud occurred when Bevis and

Bartholomew emailed a superior court filing in which they made a

false representation about when they had served discovery re-

sponses. He also pointed to false statements that Bevis allegedly

made at a hearing before Darden.

Thomas also purported to bring in Count 13 a claim that

Roy Barnes, Bartholomew, Bevis, BLI, and Barnes Law Group con-

spired to deprive him of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Aside from labeling this count as a claim under § 1985, the only

allegation in this count related to § 1985 was one conclusory sen-

tence stating that the defendants engaged in a “conspiracy to de-

prive” him of “civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 [by] in-

tentionally treating [him] different[ly] from others similarly situ-

ated and there was no rational basis for the difference in treat-

ment.” Doc. 1 at 48.

In Count 14, Thomas brought a Georgia-law civil conspiracy

claim against Bartholomew, Bevis, and Barnes Law Group. He al-

leged that they violated Georgia law by “fraudulently concealing

and suppressing material facts” related to the eviction and theft of

his personal property. Id. at 58. In this count, he mentioned federal

law in only one sentence, stating that under “federal and state law”

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 10 of 27

10 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

he was entitled to recover damages and citing to the federal RICO

statute. Id.

In Counts 15 through 23, Thomas brought various state law

claims against BLI, Roy Barnes, Marie Barnes, Davis, Griffith,

Bevis, Bartholomew, and Barnes Law Group (collectively, the

“Barnes Defendants”). These claims included unlawful eviction,

trespass, breach of quiet enjoyment, conversion, civil theft and

damage to personal property, private nuisance, and intentional in-

fliction of emotional distress. In Count 22, Thomas alleged that BLI

and Barnes Law Group were organized as limited liability compa-

nies and Roy Barnes controlled each entity. He asserted that under

Georgia’s principles of veil piercing, Roy Barnes should be held in-

dividually liable for any judgment against BLI or Barnes Law

Group.

Thomas sought damages, a declaratory judgment, and in-

junctive relief. He requested declarations that the State Court and

Magistrate Court of Cobb County lacked subject matter jurisdic-

tion over the first lawsuit and lacked personal jurisdiction over his

mother’s estate. He also sought declarations that Darden, Brewton,

and Castlen’s actions in connection with the state lawsuits violated

his constitutional rights.

After the defendants filed motions to dismiss, the district

court granted their motions and dismissed the complaint. The dis-

trict court determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction

over Counts One through Eight because these claims were barred

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 11 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 11

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.3 The court explained that under

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a federal court lacks jurisdiction “over

those cases that are essentially an appeal by a state court loser seek-

ing to relitigate a claim that has already been decided in a state

court.” Doc. 68 at 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court

explained that the claims in Counts One through Eight were prem-

ised on allegations that the Judge Defendants had issued erroneous

decisions in the first lawsuit. The district court concluded that the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred these claims.

The court also ruled in the alternative that the Judge De-

fendants enjoyed judicial immunity from the claims asserted in

Counts One through Eight. It explained that judges generally are

entitled to absolute judicial immunity from damages for acts taken

while acting in their judicial capacity.

The district court reached similar conclusions for Count

Nine, which was brought against Castlen. The court explained that

the thrust of this claim was that Castlen had wrongly dismissed

Thomas’s appeals to the Georgia Court of Appeals. The court con-

cluded that Count Nine, too, was barred by the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine. And it determined in the alternative that Castlen enjoyed

quasi-judicial immunity from this claim.

3 Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional doctrine derived from two Supreme Court

cases: Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and District of Columbia

Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 12 of 27

12 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

The court determined that the state law claims against the

Barnes Defendants raised in Counts 15 through 23 also were barred

by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court explained that these

claims arose from the Barnes Defendants’ actions in changing the

locks on the rental house, entering the house, ejecting Thomas

from the house, and damaging or stealing his property inside the

house. The court noted that Thomas had already litigated claims

arising out of these actions in the state court lawsuits. Because the

claims in Counts 15 through 23 were “nearly identical to those

[Thomas] asserted in state court” and he could prevail on these

claims only “to the extent that those claims were wrongly dis-

missed in state court,” the court concluded that the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine barred these claims as well. Id. at 14.

The district court then considered the federal claims

Thomas raised in Counts 12 through 14 and concluded they should

be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court began with

Count 12—a conspiracy claim under § 1983 alleging that Bevis and

Darden had colluded to eliminate Thomas’s right to appeal. It de-

termined that Thomas failed to state a claim for relief because he

had not identified any illegal conduct. The basis for this claim was

that Bevis had answered Darden’s questions at a hearing. Because

this exchange “constitute[d] nothing more than a routine conver-

sation between a lawyer and judge during a hearing,” the court

concluded that the allegations did not establish collusion to com-

mit any unlawful conduct. Id. at 16.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 13 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 13

The court also concluded that Thomas failed to state a fed-

eral RICO claim in Count 13. It explained that to state a claim un-

der the RICO statute, a plaintiff had to establish that the defendants

engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity.

Although Thomas alleged in the complaint that Bevis and

Bartholomew engaged in predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, the

court concluded that the allegations failed to plausibly allege any

mail or wire fraud. The complaint alleged that these defendants

committed fraud by misrepresenting material facts at a hearing and

by emailing a court filing with a false attestation about when they

had served discovery responses. The court concluded that the at-

torneys’ statements at a hearing did not qualify as mail or wire

fraud because those statements did “not involve mail, wire, radio,

or television communications.” Id. at 18. And the attorneys’ act of

emailing a document with a representation about when they

served discovery responses did not qualify as wire fraud because

“federal fraud charges cannot be based on the filing of court docu-

ments.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Thomas

failed to adequately allege two predicate acts, the court concluded

that he failed to state a claim under the federal RICO statute. 4

The court acknowledged that in Count 13 Thomas also pur-

ported to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. But the only allega-

tion related to this claim was Thomas’s assertion that he had been

4 The court similarly concluded that Thomas failed to state a federal RICO

conspiracy claim because his allegations showed no agreement to commit two

predicate racketeering activities.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 14 of 27

14 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

treated differently than other, unspecified individuals who were

similarly situated. The court concluded that this conclusory allega-

tion was insufficient to state a claim under § 1985.

The district court then considered whether Thomas had

stated a claim under federal law in Count 14 of the complaint. The

court noted that the only reference to federal law in this count was

a “conclusory statement that [Thomas] is entitled to relief under

the federal RICO statute.” Id. at 18. Because this count included no

additional allegations concerning the RICO claim, the court con-

cluded that Count 14 also did not state a claim under federal law.

The district court liberally construed Counts 10 through 14

of Thomas’s complaint as raising a variety of state law claims

against the Barnes Defendants. The court explained that it lacked

diversity jurisdiction over these claims because both Thomas and

the defendants were citizens of Georgia. Because the court had dis-

missed all the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction,

it had discretion whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

these state law claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction, however.

This is Thomas’s appeal.

II.

Several standards of review apply to this appeal. We review

de novo whether an official is entitled to absolute immunity. See Ste-

vens v. Osuna, 877 F.3d 1293, 1301 (11th Cir. 2017). We review de

novo whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim. See Behr v.

Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2021). We review de novo

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 15 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 15

whether a claim is barred by claim preclusion. Norfolk S. Corp. v.

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 371 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 2004).

We also review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion

to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna

Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1288 (11th Cir. 2010). We accept the allega-

tions in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Id. Although a complaint “does not need

detailed factual allegations,” a plaintiff must provide “more than

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). A complaint

must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A district

court may properly dismiss a complaint if it rests only on conclu-

sory allegations, unwarranted factual deductions[,] or legal conclu-

sions masquerading as facts.” Cox v. Nobles, 15 F.4th 1350, 1357

(11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings, holding

them “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.” Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir.

2014).

III.

Thomas challenges the district court’s dismissal of his com-

plaint. We divide our discussion into four parts. First, we address

the dismissal of the claims in Counts One through Nine against the

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 16 of 27

16 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

Judge Defendants and Castlen. Second, we consider the dismissal

of the state law claims against the Barnes Defendants in Counts 15

through 23. Third, we review the dismissal of the federal claims in

Counts 12 and 14. Fourth, we discuss the district court’s decision

not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims

in Counts 10 through 14.

A.

Thomas argues that the district court erred in dismissing his

claims in Counts One through Nine against the Judge Defendants

and Castlen. He argues that the district court wrongly concluded

that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred these claims.

The district court gave two alternative reasons for dismiss-

ing the claims in Counts One through Nine, concluding that they

were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, that the Judge Defend-

ants enjoyed judicial immunity, and that Castlen enjoyed quasi-ju-

dicial immunity. Thomas does not challenge on appeal the district

court’s application of judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immun-

ity. “When an appellant fails to challenge properly on appeal one

of the grounds on which the district court based its judgment, he is

deemed to have abandoned any challenge of that ground, and it

follows that the judgment is due to be affirmed.” Sapuppo v. Allstate

Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). Given

Thomas’s failure to challenge the district court’s decisions about

judicial immunity and quasi-judicial immunity, we affirm the dis-

missal of Counts One through Nine of the complaint.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 17 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 17

B.

Thomas next challenges the district court’s dismissal of his

state law claims against the Barnes Defendants in Counts 15

through 23 of the complaint. The district court concluded that

these claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Thomas

says that the district court erred in its Rooker-Feldman analysis.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “is a jurisdictional rule that pre-

cludes the lower federal courts from reviewing state court judg-

ments.” Alvarez v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 679 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir.

2012). The rule is not prudential but rather “follows naturally from

the jurisdictional boundaries that Congress has set for the federal

courts.” Behr, 8 F.4th at 1210. The first relevant jurisdictional

boundary is that “federal district courts are courts of original juris-

diction,” which “generally cannot hear appeals.” Id. The second is

that “only the Supreme Court can reverse or modify state court

judgments; neither district courts nor the circuits can touch them.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We have explained that

“[a]llowing federal district courts to alter or directly review the

judgments of state courts would violate both of those jurisdictional

grants.” Id.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a claim only when it is

“brought by [a] state-court loser[] complaining of injuries caused

by [a] state-court judgment[] rendered before the district court pro-

ceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejec-

tion of those judgments.” Id. at 1210 (internal quotation marks

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 18 of 27

18 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

omitted). The doctrine bars a claim only when the injury asserted

is “caused by the judgment itself.” Id. at 1212.

Given these limitations, we have warned that Rooker-Feld-

man “will almost never apply.” Id. It “does not prevent a district

court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction simply because a

party attempts to litigate in federal court a matter previously liti-

gated in state court.” Id. at 1211 (internal quotation marks omit-

ted). We have warned that it does not “block claims that require

some reconsideration of a decision of a state court if the plaintiff

presents some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal

conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was

a party.” Id. at 1212 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, the district court erred when it concluded that the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred Thomas’s state law claims against

the Barnes Defendants in Counts 15 through 23. These claims arose

out of injuries that Thomas experienced when these defendants al-

legedly changed the locks on the rental house, ejected him from it,

and damaged or stole his personal property inside the house. Alt-

hough these issues were litigated in the two state court lawsuits,

the state court judgments are not the source of the injuries that

Thomas raises in these claims. Accordingly, the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine does not bar them.

Although the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply, we

nevertheless affirm the district court’s dismissal of these claims on

the alternative ground that they are barred by claim preclusion. See

Kernel Recs. Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012)

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 19 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 19

(recognizing that we “may affirm the judgment of the district court

on any ground supported by the record, regardless of whether that

ground was relied upon or even considered by the district court”);

see also Behr, 8 F.4th at 1214 (recognizing that even when the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply, a claim may be barred by

“[o]ther preclusion . . . doctrines”).

When deciding whether a claim-preclusion bar applies, fed-

eral courts apply the law of the state in which they sit. Starship En-

ters. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta Cnty., 708 F.3d 1243, 1252–53 (11th

Cir. 2013). Because Thomas filed this case in Georgia, we look to

Georgia law.

In Georgia, the doctrine of claim preclusion “prevents the

re-litigation of all claims which have already been adjudicated, or

which could have been adjudicated, between identical parties or

their privies in identical causes of action.” Id. at 1253 (internal quo-

tation marks omitted); see O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40. For claim preclusion

to apply, three requirements must be met: “(1) identity of the

cause[s] of action; (2) identity of the parties or their privies; and

(3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent ju-

risdiction.” Starship Enters., 708 F.3d at 1253–54 (internal quotation

marks omitted). After reviewing these factors, we conclude that

claim preclusion bars Counts 15 through 23 because Thomas seeks

to relitigate claims that were already adjudicated in the second state

court litigation, which involved identical parties or their privies.

Under the first requirement for claim preclusion, there must

be identical causes of action. In addressing this requirement,

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 20 of 27

20 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

“Georgia courts look to see whether the claims arise from the same

subject matter.” Id. at 1254 (internal quotation marks omitted). In

both the second lawsuit and this action, Thomas brought claims

for wrongful eviction, trespass, breach of quiet enjoyment of prop-

erty, conversion, theft, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emo-

tional distress arising out of the actions of the Barnes Defendants

in removing him from the rental house. Because all the claims in

this action arose from the same subject matter as the second law-

suit, there is identity of causes of action.5

The second requirement for claim preclusion is whether the

parties to this lawsuit are identical to or in privity with the parties

from the second lawsuit. Several of the defendants against whom

the claims in Counts 15 through 23 were brought—BLI, Roy

Barnes, Marie Barnes, Davis, and Griffith—were also defendants in

the second lawsuit. It is true that in these counts, Thomas added

three new defendants: Barnes Law Group, Bevis, and Bartholo-

mew—the attorneys and law firm who represented BLI and the

other defendants in the second lawsuit. Under the particular facts

of this case, however, we conclude that the interests of Bevis, Bar-

tholomew, and Barnes Law Group were adequately represented by

the defendants in the second lawsuit and thus the identity

5 In Count 22 of this action, Thomas brought a claim for piercing the corporate

veil, asserting that Roy Barnes was liable for any judgment against BLI and

Barnes Law Group. But he failed to bring any standalone claim for veil pierc-

ing in the second lawsuit. Even though Thomas brought no veil-piercing claim

in the second lawsuit, the first requirement is satisfied because this claim arose

out of the same subject matter as the claims in the second lawsuit.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 21 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 21

requirement is satisfied. See Ga. Power Co. v. Brandreth Farms, LLC,

875 S.E.2d 444, 450 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022) (recognizing that under

Georgia law “[p]rivity may be established if the party to the first

suit represented the interests of the party to the second suit”).

The third requirement for claim preclusion is that the previ-

ous lawsuit must have been adjudicated on the merits by a court of

competent jurisdiction. The Superior Court of Cobb County had

jurisdiction over the second lawsuit. See Ga. Const. art. VI, § 4;

O.C.G.A. § 15-6-8(1). And in the second lawsuit the state court ad-

judicated Thomas’s claims on the merits because it granted sum-

mary judgment to the defendants. Georgia courts have recognized

that “an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on

the merits of the case” for claim-preclusion purposes. Summer-

Minter Assocs. v. Giordano, 203 S.E. 2d 173, 176 (Ga. 1974).

Because the claims in Counts 15 through 23 are barred by

claim preclusion, we affirm the dismissal of these counts.

C.

We now turn to whether the district court erred when it dis-

missed for failure to state a claim the federal claims Thomas raised

in Counts 12 and 13. After reviewing each count, we conclude that

the district court did not err.

In Count 12, Thomas’s pro se complaint, liberally construed,

raised a § 1983 claim alleging that Bevis conspired with Darden to

foreclose Thomas’s right to appeal the state court’s judgment in

the first lawsuit.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 22 of 27

22 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

“To state a claim for conspiracy under § 1983, a plaintiff

must allege that (1) the defendants reached an understanding or

agreement that they would deny the plaintiff one of his constitu-

tional rights; and (2) the conspiracy resulted in an actual denial of

one of his constitutional rights.” Weiland v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sher-

iff’s Off., 792 F.3d 1313, 1327 (11th Cir. 2015). A private citizen, like

Bevis, cannot be liable under § 1983 unless he is shown to have con-

spired with one or more state actors. See Rowe v. City of Ft. Lauder-

dale, 279 F.3d 1271, 1283 (11th Cir. 2022).

In Count 12, to support his assertion that a conspiracy ex-

isted, Thomas pointed to a discussion that Bevis and Darden had

during a hearing in the first lawsuit in which Bevis answered a ques-

tion from Darden about BLI’s legal position. But this exchange

merely shows that Bevis filled the normal function of an attorney

at a hearing by answering the court’s questions. Nothing in this ex-

change supports an inference that Bevis reached an agreement with

Darden to deprive Thomas of his constitutional rights. We thus

conclude that this count does not contain sufficient factual matter

to state a plausible claim that Bevis conspired with Darden. See Iq-

bal, 556 U.S. at 680 (explaining that a complaint’s assertion of an

“unlawful agreement” is a “legal conclusion” that is “not entitled

to the assumption of truth” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

In Count 13, Thomas purported to bring a federal RICO

claim against BLI, Roy Barnes, Bartholomew, Bevis, and Barnes

Law Group. To state a substantive RICO claim, a “plaintiff must

plead (1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 23 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 23

racketeering activity.” Omnipol, A.S. v. Multinational Def. Servs.,

LLC, 32 F.4th 1298, 1308 (11th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “To state a claim for civil damages, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c)

further requires [a plaintiff] to allege (5) injury to [his] business or

property (6) by reason of the substantive RICO violation.” Craw-

ford’s Auto Ctr., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 945 F.3d 1150,

1158 (11th Cir. 2019).

We focus here on the pattern requirement. To establish a

pattern of racketeering activity, the plaintiff must allege “at least

two qualifying predicate acts, each of which must constitute a vio-

lation of one of the state or federal laws described in 18 U.S.C.

§ 1961(1).” Id. Both mail fraud and wire fraud qualify as predicate

acts. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).

To state a claim for mail or wire fraud, a plaintiff must allege

that the defendants “(1) intentionally participate[d] in a scheme to

defraud another of money or property and (2) use[d] the mails or

wires in furtherance of that scheme.” Am. Dental Ass’n , 605 F.3d at

1290; see 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. When fraud is alleged as the pred-

icate act for a RICO claim, the plaintiff must satisfy the heightened

pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Cisne-

ros v. Petland, Inc., 972 F.3d 1204, 1216 (11th Cir. 2020). He must

plead “(1) the precise statements, documents, or misrepresenta-

tions made; (2) the time, place, and person responsible for the state-

ment; (3) the content and manner in which these statements misled

the [p]laintiff; and (4) what the defendants gained by the alleged

fraud.” Id. (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 24 of 27

24 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

In general, the “mailing of litigation documents, even perjurious

ones, [does] not violate the mail-fraud statute.” United States v. Pen-

dergraft, 297 F.3d 1198, 1209 (11th Cir. 2002).

Thomas failed to state a federal RICO claim in Count 13 be-

cause his allegations fail to establish that the defendants engaged in

a pattern of racketeering activity. True, he identified mail and wire

fraud as predicate acts that Beavis and Bartholomew allegedly com-

mitted. According to the complaint, they committed fraud when

they made false statements at a state court hearing and sent an

email transmitting a court filing that contained a false representa-

tion about when they served discovery responses.

We agree with the district court that these allegations are

insufficient to establish that the defendants committed mail or wire

fraud. Any statements made at a state court hearing cannot qualify

as mail or wire fraud because they were not made using mail, wire,

radio, or television communications. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343.

Furthermore, the attorneys’ act of emailing a court filing that alleg-

edly contained false information about when they served discovery

responses did not constitute wire fraud. See Pendergraft, 297 F.3d at

1206, 1208–09 (concluding that criminal defendants did not violate

mail fraud statute when they mailed opposing party declarations in

support of summary judgment motions that allegedly contained

false statements). 6 Even assuming that in some circumstances

6 Although Pendergraft analyzed whether the sending of court filings qualified

as mail fraud, the decision guides our analysis because “[m]ail and wire fraud

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 25 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 25

emailing a court filing with a false representation could qualify as

wire fraud, we cannot say that Thomas has pleaded fraud with par-

ticularity because he has not identified what the defendants gained

through the false representation about the timing of their discovery

responses. See Cisneros, 972 F.3d at 1216. Accordingly, we conclude

that Thomas failed to state a claim for a substantive RICO violation

under federal law. 7

The district court also construed Count 13 as raising a fed-

eral claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy to deprive Thomas

of his civil rights but concluded that he failed to state a claim. He

argues that the complaint adequately alleged a conspiracy to de-

prive him of civil rights.

We disagree. In Count 13, the only allegation related to the

§ 1985 claim is the assertion that the defendants treated Thomas

differently than others who were similarly situated. But the com-

plaint contained no facts about who the other similarly situated in-

dividuals were or how Thomas was treated differently from them.

Because the § 1985 claim rested only on a conclusory allegation,

the district court properly dismissed it. See Cox, 15 F.4th at 1357.

Before moving on, we note that the district court treated

Count 14 as raising a federal RICO claim and then concluded that

are analytically identical save for the method of execution.” United States v.

Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1238 (11th Cir. 2011).

7 The district court also construed Count 13 as raising a federal RICO conspir-

acy claim. Because Thomas raises no issue on appeal challenging the dismissal

of the federal RICO conspiracy claim, we discuss the claim no further.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 26 of 27

26 Opinion of the Court 23-13683

Thomas failed to state a claim for relief. On appeal, Thomas says

that Count 14 raised only a state law claim, not a federal RICO

claim. Given Thomas’s concession that he did not raise a federal

claim in Count 14, we do not address whether this count stated a

claim for relief under federal law.

D.

The district court liberally construed Counts 10 through 14

of the complaint as raising various state law claims. It determined

that it did not have diversity jurisdiction over these claims because

Thomas and the defendants were all citizens of Georgia. After dis-

missing all the claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the

court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over these

state law claims.

On appeal, Thomas challenges the dismissal of the state law

claims in Counts 10 through 14. He says that if we reverse the dis-

trict court’s dismissal of any of his federal claims, we also should

reverse the dismissal of these state law claims. But, as explained

above, we affirm the dismissal of all the federal claims. And we can-

not say that the district court abused its considerable discretion

when, after dismissing all federal claims, it declined to exercise sup-

plemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. See Romero v.

Drummond Co., Inc., 552 F.3d 1303, 1318 (11th Cir. 2008).

IV.

For the reasons given above, we affirm the judgment of the

district court.

USCA11 Case: 23-13683 Document: 79-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2025 Page: 27 of 27

23-13683 Opinion of the Court 27

AFFIRMED.8

8 There are two motions currently pending before the court. We DENY both

motions.

First, Thomas seeks to supplement the record. Some of the documents he

seeks to add are already part of the record before us. And the remaining doc-

uments are irrelevant to the issues before us. We thus deny this motion.

Now, the second motion. While this appeal was pending, Davis’s attorney

provided notice that Davis had passed away and no personal representative

had been appointed for his estate. The attorney has filed a motion to dismiss

this appeal or to stay the appeal until a personal representative can be ap-

pointed. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if a party dies after

a notice of appeal and the decedent has no representative, we may “direct ap-

propriate proceedings.” Fed. R. App. P. 43(a).

Here, Thomas brought a variety of state law claims against Davis seeking dam-

ages for injury to property. These claims were not extinguished by Davis’s

death. Georgia law provides that “[n]o action shall abate by the death of either

party, where the cause of action shall in any case survive to or against the legal

representatives of the deceased party, either in the same or any other form of

action.” O.C.G.A. § 9-2-40. It also states that no “action or cause of action for

the recovery of damages for . . . injury to property [shall] abate by the death

of either party.” Id § 9-2-41. Because these claims were not extinguished by

Davis’s death, we deny the motion to dismiss the appeal as to Davis. Although

no personal representative has yet been appointed to represent Davis’s estate,

we need not stay this action so that a personal representative can be appointed

because we affirm the dismissal of all claims.