Elizabeth J. Martin v. Chief Disciplinary Counsel of Missouri; Chief Judge Mary R. Russell

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[Unpublished]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

-- 1 of 2 --

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.
______________________________
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --