Elizabeth Martin v. Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Missouri

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 25-3230

___________________________

Elizabeth J. Martin

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Missouri; Chief Judge Mary R. Russell

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

Submitted: August 5, 2026 Filed: August 10, 2026

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and JUSTIN D. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Elizabeth Martin appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of her pro se action alleging civil rights violations due to the Missouri Supreme Court’s suspension of her

1 The Honorable Rodney W. Sippel, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

law license. Upon de novo review, we affirm. See Sutter & Gillham PLLC v. Henry, 146 F.4th 699, 701-02 (8th Cir. 2025) (standard of review). We agree with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Martin’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as those claims alleged injury arising from a state-court judgment and sought to overturn that judgment. See D.C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486-87 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); Sutter & Gillham, 146 F.4th at 702 (Rooker-Feldman bars claim if legal wrong asserted is state-court judgment itself, with rejection of that judgment as remedy). The district court properly declined to consider the new claims Martin attempted to raise in her opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, and we do not consider those claims on appeal. See Richardson v. Omaha Sch. Dist., 957 F.3d 869, 877-78 (8th Cir. 2020).

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________