Heather Nicole Johnston v. Monica Morris, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-10107
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
HEATHER NICOLE JOHNSTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MONICA MORRIS,
JAMECIA DAVIS,
NORTH BIRMINGHAM POLICE DEPARTMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
JEFFERSON COUNTY,
FAMILY COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10107 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 1 of 6

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-10107
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cv-01055-AMM
____________________
Before BRANCH, BRASHER , and A BUDU , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is a child custody case. After Heather Johnston lost
custody of her daughter, K.J., in Alabama family court and her
appeal was dismissed, Johnston brought this pro se lawsuit. She
alleges that various actors, including personnel in the Alabama
Department of Human Resources (DHR), the North Birmingham
Police Department, and the Family Court of Jefferson County,
“human trafficked” her daughter and conspired to deprive
Johnston of custody. Johnston alleges that these acts violated
several federal statutes and amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
The district court sua sponte dismissed her complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. We
affirm the dismissal on other jurisdictional grounds: Johnston lacks
Article III standing.
I. Background
Custody proceedings involving Johnston’s daughter, K.J.,
began on September 10, 2020, when Monica Morris1 filed a petition
in the Juvenile Court of Jefferson County requesting custody of K.J.
1 Morris and K.J. are unrelated. Morris appears to have been a family friend.
USCA11 Case: 23-10107 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 2 of 6

-- 2 of 6 --

23-10107 Opinion of the Court 3
Then, on November 10, 2020, K.J.’s guardian ad litem filed a motion
asserting that K.J.’s home life had deteriorated, and an immediate
hearing was necessary to protect her safety. Three days later, K.J.
ran away from home and stayed with Morris. She was then placed
in protective custody by the Birmingham Police Department.
The family court held a hearing on July 19, 2021, granting
custody to Morris but allowing Johnston visitation rights. Johnston
appealed this decision to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals,
which dismissed her case. Johnston filed this federal case on
August 22, 2022.
Johnston’s amended complaint alleged that Morris and
Jamecia Davis conspired to have Morris harbor K.J., which
Johnston alleged was “[h]uman trafficking.” She also alleged that
various employees of the DHR and the Family Court of Jefferson
County, Officer Brown from the North Birmingham Police
Department, and K.J.’s guardian ad litem, assisted in the human
trafficking. Further, she alleged that these defendants lied to the
family court, and, in some instances, conspired with the family
court to prevent Johnston from having custody over her daughter.
Johnston alleges that these acts violated several federal
statutes and amendments to the U.S. Constitution.2 As for relief,
Johnston’s original complaint requested attorneys’ fees and that the
2 As to federal statutes, Johnston alleged violations of 18 U.S.C §§ 242, 371,
792, 1001, 1503, and 1590. As to the Constitution, Johnston alleged violations
of amendments IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIII, and IX.
USCA11 Case: 23-10107 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 3 of 6

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-10107
court “immediately remove [K.J.] from the custody of Monica
Morris . . . .” But in her amended complaint, Johnston did not
request damages and stated many times that she “is not seeking a
reversal of the trial court’s decision but she is asking for her and her
children’s constitutional rights to be protected and that this court
follow the laws of the United States and enforce the laws of the
United States and the constitution.”
The district court dismissed Johnston’s amended complaint
sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine (albeit without referencing the doctrine by
name). It held that Johnston’s claims did not seek damages and
ultimately sought relief from a state court judgment, which is
impermissible under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. But even if
Johnston had asked for damages, the district court held that
Johnston’s claim would be subject to dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for being a frivolous action. Johnston appealed.
II. Discussion
This Court reviews de novo a district court’s determination
that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Behr v. Campbell, 8 F.4th
1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 2021). “Federal courts have an independent
obligation to ensure that subject-matter jurisdiction exists before
reaching the merits of a dispute.” Jacobson v. Florida Sec. of State,
974 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir. 2020). “If at any point a federal court
discovers a lack of jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action.” Id.
While the district court dismissed Johnston’s claim under
the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, we affirm the dismissal for a separate
USCA11 Case: 23-10107 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 4 of 6

-- 4 of 6 --

23-10107 Opinion of the Court 5
jurisdictional reason—Johnston lacks standing. Specifically, she
has not requested relief likely to redress her alleged injury. Article
III of the Constitution limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of
federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III,
§ 2. “To have a case or controversy, a litigant must establish that
[s]he has standing,” which requires proof of three elements. United
States v. Amodeo, 916 F.3d 967, 971 (11th Cir. 2019). The litigant
must prove (1) an injury in fact that (2) is fairly traceable to the
challenged action of the defendant and (3) is likely to be redressed
by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–
61 (1992). As to redressability, we must be able “to ascertain from
the record whether the relief requested is likely to redress the
alleged injury.” Hollywood Mobile Estates Ltd. v. Seminole Tribe of
Florida, 641 F.3d 1259, 1266 (11th Cir. 2011).
Johnston’s requested relief is that “her and her children’s
constitutional rights . . . be protected and that this court follow the
laws of the United States and enforce the laws of the United States
and the constitution.” She makes clear that she “is not seeking a
reversal of the [state] trial court’s decision” depriving her of
custody of K.J., and she does not request damages or injunctive
relief. Thus, because mere “vindication of the rule of law . . . . does
not suffice” for redressability, and Johnston has not requested any
other relief likely to redress her alleged injury, we must dismiss her
USCA11 Case: 23-10107 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 5 of 6

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Opinion of the Court 23-10107
claim for lack of standing. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,
523 U.S. 83, 106–07 (1998).3
AFFIRMED.
3 If Johnston had—as she did in her original complaint—requested that we
“immediately remove [K.J.] from the custody of Monica Morris,” she would
run headfirst into the Rooker-Feldman problem that the district court cited. The
Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires dismissal when a losing state court litigant
calls on a district court to modify or overturn an injurious state-court
judgment. Behr, 8 F.4th at 1210. As the district court held, asking the court to
overturn the state court’s custody decision goes to the heart of the state court
judgment and runs headlong into Rooker-Feldman.
USCA11 Case: 23-10107 Document: 16-1 Date Filed: 01/31/2024 Page: 6 of 6

-- 6 of 6 --