Kidane Sante Shulbe v. The State of Minnesota, No. 15-1367 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam. Before Smith, Colloton, and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - jurisdiction. District court's dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman doctrine in challenge to state court action and removal of state court judges is summarily affirmed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-1367 ___________________________ Kidane Sante Shulbe lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. The State of Minnesota; Ashley Rose Henke; Safe Haven lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: October 28, 2015 Filed: November 6, 2015 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Kidane Shulbe appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his complaint, in which he sought relief from an order entered in a state-court case and he sought damages for 1 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. injuries allegedly resulting from that order. He has also filed in this court a motion seeking the removal of judges who were involved in the state-court proceedings. The district court dismissed Shulbe’s complaint without prejudice upon concluding that, under the Rooker-Feldman2 doctrine, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Upon careful review of the record and Shulbe’s arguments on appeal, we conclude that the dismissal was proper. See Minch Family LLLP. v. Buffalo-Red River Watershed Dist., 628 F.3d 960, 965 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo standard of review); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (if court determines at any time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, court must dismiss action); Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 283-84 (2005) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Shulbe’s pending motion. ______________________________ 2 See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
