Haywood Jackson Mizell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-12119
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 22-12119 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-12119 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

HAYWOOD JACKSON MIZELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-00569-ECM-SMD USCA11 Case: 22-12119 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 22-12119

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Haywood Mizell appeals the district court’s order granting Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s and PHH Mortgage Corporation’s mo- tions to dismiss his pro se complaint alleging wrongful foreclosure of two properties. We reverse. Mizell’s claims appear to revolve around two foreclosure sales—one by each defendant. Wells Fargo foreclosed on a loan obtained by Mizell’s wife. PHH foreclosed on a loan obtained by Mizell’s daughter and son-in-law. Both loans were secured by properties located in Ozark, Alabama, and each property was sold at a foreclosure sale. In his complaint, Mizell alleged that Wells Fargo and PHH weren’t entitled to the proceeds of these sales. Both defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction because Mizell’s claims were barred by the Rooker–Feldman1 doctrine and that Mizell failed to state a claim. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation. Upon finding that Mizell’s claims were inextricably intertwined with final judgments from state court involving the same parties and

1 Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); Dist. of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). USCA11 Case: 22-12119 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 3 of 5

22-12119 Opinion of the Court 3

properties, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Mizell’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman. Mizell objected to the report and recom- mendation but raised no arguments about the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. The district court adopted the report and recommenda- tion and dismissed Mizell’s claims with prejudice on the sole basis that Rooker–Feldman stripped the district court of its subject mat- ter jurisdiction. Mizell timely appealed. On appeal, Mizell reiterates the arguments from his com- plaint but doesn’t challenge the district court’s dismissal of his com- plaint for lack of jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman. The defend- ants argue primarily that—as a result of Mizell’s failure to address the district court’s sole reason for dismissing his complaint, coupled with his failure to object to the report and recommendation on - Rooker–Feldman grounds—Mizell has waived any challenge to the district court’s dismissal. Indeed, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant ordinarily are deemed abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). And, under the rules of this court, a party who fails to object to a magistrate judge’s find- ings contained in a report and recommendation generally “waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. But “[t]he Rooker–Feldman doctrine is jurisdictional.” Brown v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 611 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2010). And “arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction can- not be waived.” First Union Nat’l Bank of Fla. v. Hall, 123 F.3d USCA11 Case: 22-12119 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 22-12119

1374, 1378 n.7 (11th Cir. 1997). So, notwithstanding the deficien- cies of Mizell’s briefs, we’re compelled to review de novo the dis- trict court’s determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine. Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2021). The Rooker–Feldman doctrine bars district courts from re- viewing or rejecting state court judgments rendered before the dis- trict court litigation began. Id. at 1210. The scope of the doctrine is narrow, confined to “cases brought by state-court losers com- plaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered be- fore the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). Rooker–Feldman “does not prioritize form over substance,” mean- ing that it bars all appeals of state court judgments in district courts whether the plaintiff admits to filing a direct appeal or tries to call the appeal something else. Behr, 8 F.4th at 1211. The injury to the plaintiff must be caused by the judgment itself. Id. The question isn’t whether the whole complaint seems to challenge a previous state court judgment, but whether the resolution of each individual claim requires review and rejection of a state court judgment. Id. at 1213. In Behr, we warned that “district courts should keep one thing in mind when Rooker–Feldman is raised: it will almost never apply.” Id. at 1212. As the district court itself acknowledged, “[t]he injuries about which [Mizell] complains were caused by the underlying USCA11 Case: 22-12119 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/23/2023 Page: 5 of 5

22-12119 Opinion of the Court 5

foreclosure actions”—not by the state court judgments that upheld those actions. We also note that Mizell didn’t invite the district court to review and reject those judgments in his complaint. In- stead, he challenged the defendants’ power to conduct the nonju- dicial foreclosure sales and their entitlement to the proceeds. Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction over Mizell’s claims and erred in applying Rooker–Feldman. The defendants ask us to affirm the district court’s order on a number of alternative grounds, which were raised in their mo- tions to dismiss. But because the district court gave only one rea- son for dismissing Mizell’s complaint—the Rooker–Feldman doc- trine—we defer to the district court to decide in the first instance whether any or all of these grounds merit dismissal. See Behr, 8 F.4th at 1214. REVERSED AND REMANDED.