GODMAN v. OBERLIESEN et al

Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
TAMMY GODMAN,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 3:25cv2634-MCR-HTC
DAVID JAMES OBERLIESEN and
BRAD EDWARD EMBRY,
Defendants.
__________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tammy Godman, proceeding pro se, has filed a “Civil Complaint
Claim in Equity,” (Doc. 1), which seeks to prevent a foreclosure sale that took place
on December 18, 2025.1 Upon consideration, the undersigned concludes this case
should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of jurisdiction, as it is
barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.2
I. 	BACKGROUND
On September 13, 2023, PennyMac Loan Services filed suit in Florida state
court to foreclose on the property located at 727 Denise Dr. in Baker, Florida. 	See
1 The Court takes judicial notice that the Okaloosa County Circuit Court published a Certificate of
Sale on December 18, 2025, indicating the property at issue was offered for public sale and sold
to the highest bidder for cash. PennyMac Loan Services LLC v. Tammy Belinda Arcos et al., Case
No. 2023-CA-3402, Doc. 186 (Fla. Okaloosa County Ct. Dec. 18, 2025).
2 The doctrine derives its name from two 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).
Case 3:25-cv-02634-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 6

Page 2 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2634-MCR-HTC
PennyMac Loan Services LLC v. Tammy Belinda Arcos3 et al., Case No. 2023-CA-
3402, Doc. 141 at 2 (Fla. Okaloosa County Ct. July 29, 2025). 	The state court
documents show that Plaintiff Godman and her husband were the mortgagors on the
loan in default. 	Id., Doc. 4 at 10. On July 29, 2025, the state court issued a Final
Judgment of Foreclosure against Defendants after they did not appear for trial. 	Id.
at 1.
Godman maintains Defendants violated her due process rights during the
foreclosure proceedings because the state court did not “first address[] jurisdiction
over trust property or the effect of fiduciary administration,” 	(Doc. 1-1 at 3) and
because she was denied a jury trial (Doc. 1-1 at 4).4 As relief, she requests
declaratory and injunctive relief in the form of: (1) a temporary restraining order to
maintain the status quo; (2) a preliminary injunction “enjoining Defendants…from
conducting or facilitating any foreclosure sale or transfer of the Property;” (3) a
permanent injunction against Defendants from enforcing foreclosure; and (4)
3 The Court may take judicial notice of the state court docket for the foreclosure proceeding. See
Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649, 652-53 (11th Cir. 2020). The state court litigation
identifies Godman as Tammy Belinda Arcos. 	Some aspects of Godman’s complaint, including
bringing the complaint “[i]n her capacity as duly accepted Executor and Fiduciary of the Estates
of TAMMY BELINDA ARCOS©™ and TAMMY BELINDA GODMAN®,” are associated with
the sovereign citizen movement. 	See Doc. 1-1 at 1. 	Courts have routinely rejected that
movement’s legal theories as frivolous. See United States v. Sterling, 738 F.3d 228, 233 n. 1 (11th
Cir. 2013) (“Courts have been confronted repeatedly by [sovereign citizens’] attempts to delay
judicial proceedings and have summarily rejected their legal theories as frivolous.”).
4 Shortly after filing this suit, Godman also filed suit against PennyMac arising out of the same
foreclosure action and alleging PennyMac violated her due process rights and RESPA. Godman
v. PennyMac Loan Servs., LLC, 3:25cv2657TKW/HTC (pending Report and Recommendation for
dismissal).
Case 3:25-cv-02634-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 6

Page 3 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2634-MCR-HTC
declaratory relief that there is an “actual controversy” preventing foreclosure
enforcement until “resolving jurisdiction, jury-trial rights, and equitable interests.”
Doc. 1-1 at 4-5.
II. 	DISCUSSION
The 	Rooker-Feldman 	doctrine prohibits a district court from exercising
subject 	matter 	jurisdiction 	over 	a 	complaint 	“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.”5 Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280,
284 (2005). The doctrine bars claims where “the source of the plaintiff’s injury is
the state-court judgment itself,” Efron v. Candelario, 110 F.4th 1229, 1236 (11th Cir.
2024), “whether the plaintiff admits to filing a direct appeal of the judgment or tries
to call the appeal something else.” Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th 1206, 1211 (11th Cir.
2021) (citation omitted).
Here, the state court entered a final judgment of foreclosure on July 29,
2025—nearly five months before Godman filed this federal action on December 18.
And because Godman asks this Court to permanently enjoin the foreclosure sale
5 The Court is obligated to sua sponte consider whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a
plaintiff’s claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Linares v. Armor Corr. Health Servs.,
Inc., 591 F. App’x 924 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming district court’s sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff’s
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and noting
“[i]f at any time the district court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss
the action”).
Case 3:25-cv-02634-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 6

Page 4 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2634-MCR-HTC
(which has already happened), it is clear she effectively wants the Court to nullify
the judgment of foreclosure and let her keep litigating the issues already decided in
state court. In claiming she “does not seek review or reversal of a final state court
judgment but seeks prospective declaratory and injunctive relief” (Doc. 1 at 9; see
also Doc. 1-1 at 1), Godman merely “tries to call the appeal something else” (Behr,
8 F.4th at 1211). 	Thus, this case should be dismissed without prejudice under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 	See, e.g., Froncek v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 2015 WL
12838166, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2015) (concluding court lacked jurisdiction
under Rooker-Feldman doctrine to stop foreclosure sale and consider propriety of
state foreclosure order); see also, Leathers v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC,
3:25cv51TKW/HTC (February 7, 2025) (Doc. 5) (adopting, over objection, report
and recommendation, for dismissal of suit attacking foreclosure judgment as
violating due process rights based on Rooker-Feldman).
Finally, even if this action was not barred by Rooker-Feldman, it would still
be subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because Godman has not alleged the
existence of federal subject matter or diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
1332. First, diversity jurisdiction cannot exist because Godman, a Florida resident,
Case 3:25-cv-02634-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 6

Page 5 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2634-MCR-HTC
sues a Florida state court judge, Judge Oberliesen, and the Okaloosa County Clerk
of Court, Brad Embry.6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Second, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction because Godman’s
alleged due process claim is purely conclusory and unsupported by any facts. 	See
Denson v. Carson, 2008 WL 2157099, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 21, 2008) (rejecting
plaintiff’s attempt to invoke federal question jurisdiction by allegation violation of
due process rights during foreclosure where plaintiff “alleges no facts in her
complaint to support her claim that the Fourth Judicial Circuit deprived her of due
process”); see also, Butler v. Morgan, 562 F. App’x 832, 835 (11th Cir. 2014) (“The
sole reference to federal law in the amended complaint—a single footnote citation
listing, without context or elaboration, various constitutional amendments—is
6 Judge Oberliesen is also immune from liability for injunctive relief because Godman does not
contend the judge violated a decree or that declaratory relief is unavailable to her. See Tarver v.
Reynolds, 808 F. App’x 752, 754 (11th Cir. 2020) (state court judges are immune from liability,
including declaratory and injunctive relief, unless the judge has either violated a declaratory
decree, or declaratory relief is otherwise unavailable to plaintiff). 	Moreover, immunity applies
because Godman has an adequate remedy at law – an appeal of the foreclosure judgment. See id.
(“A state appellate process is an adequate remedy at law.”) (citing Sibley v. Lando, 437 F.3d 1067,
1074 (11th Cir. 2005). In an unpublished decision, the Eleventh Circuit extended this immunity
to the clerk of court. See Daker v. Keaton, 2021 WL 3556921, at *3 (11th Cir. August 12, 2021)
(noting that under § 1983, declaratory or injunctive relief is available against a judicial official,
including a clerk or court, only if the official “violated a declaratory decree or declaratory relief
[was] otherwise be unavailable”); but see Courthouse News Srvc. v. Forman, 4:22cv106-MW-
MAF, Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF Doc. 45 (N.D. Fla. June 10, 2022)
(determining 	the 	function 	at 	issue—“implementing 	a 	policy 	governing 	docketing 	civil
complaints”—was nonjudicial in nature, and therefore refusing to extend quasi-judicial immunity
to the clerk of court).
Case 3:25-cv-02634-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 6

Page 6 of 6
Case No. 3:25cv2634-MCR-HTC
inadequate to demonstrate a federal question under the well-pleaded complaint
rule.”).
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that:
1. 	This 	case 	be 	DISMISSED WITHOUT 	PREJUDICE 	for 	lack 	of
jurisdiction.
2. 	The Clerk close the file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 29 th day of December, 2025.
/s/ Hope Thai Cannon
HOPE THAI CANNON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within
fourteen (14) days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only
and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all
other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to
challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and
legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.
Case 3:25-cv-02634-MCR-HTC Document 6 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 6