DEAN

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

Plaintiff, Michael Dean, initiated this action on March 14, 2025. ECF No. 1. Upon sua sponte review of the record, Mr. Dean appears to be seeking review of a state court's judgment of foreclosure. Id. Mr. Dean has subsequently filed two motions for preliminary injunction and a motion to vacate the foreclosure sale. ECF Nos. 5, 10, 13.

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing state court decisions because lower federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over final state-court judgments. Behr v. Campbell, 8 F. 4th 1206, 1210 (11th Cir. 2021). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F. 3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2009) (quotation

marks omitted). The doctrine applies not only to federal claims raised in state court, but also to those that are inextricably intertwined with the state court's judgment. Casale v. Tillman, 558 F. 3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009).

A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state-court claim when, in substance, it amounts to a direct appeal of the state-court judgment, even if the appellant does not refer to the proceeding as a direct appeal. Behr, 8 F. 4th at 1211. A "claim that at its heart challenges the state court decision itself—and not the statute or law which under-lies that decision—falls within the doctrine.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Courts must use a claim-by-claim basis, deciding "whether resolution of each individual claim requires review and rejection of a state court judgment." Id. at 1213. Claims that seek "relief from the judgment of the state court" rather than damages for constitutional violations are barred. Id. at 1214.

In his Complaint, Mr. Dean says the state court “willful[ly] refus[ed] to rule on pending motions and fail[ed] to address substantial evidence of fraud, forgery, and due process violations.” ECF No. 1 at p.1. Following a bench trial, final judgement was entered against Mr. Dean and a foreclosure sale took place on March 31, 2025. Mr. Dean now brings this action “seeking immediate regulatory intervention against the Defendants and the presiding Judge for "mortgage fraud, judicial misconduct, and criminal violations." Id. at p. 4. Mr. Dean also asks this Court to vacate the foreclosure sale. ECF No. 13. In doing so, Mr. Dean is asking the Court to re-examine the state court decision and undo the state court foreclosure judgment. This requested relief is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See generally Flournoy v. Gov't Nat'l

2

Mortgage Ass'n, 2016 WL 98699 (S.D. Fla 2016). Therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, this Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS this action and DENY any pending motions as MOOT.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT

A party shall serve and file written objections, if any, to this Report and Recommendation with the Honorable Robin L. Rosenberg, United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of Florida, within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections shall constitute a waiver of a party's "right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions." 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2016).

If counsel do not intend to file objections, they shall file a notice advising the District Court within FIVE DAYS of this Report and Recommendation.

DONE and SUBMITTED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, in the Southern District of Florida, this 16th day of April 2025.

BRUCE E. REINHART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3