ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed this action on July 12, 2017. (Doc. 1.) The following day, they filed an amended complaint (Doc. 2 ("
First, Plaintiffs have failed to comport with any of the requirements listed in Local Rule 4.05 or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 for requesting ex parte injunctive relief. Second, upon examination of the Complaint, the Court is without sufficient information to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.
Importantly, the Complaint discusses a sheriff's sale that occurred on July 11, 2017, and Plaintiffs' efforts to tender cashier checks to cover "Judgments rendered in Volusia County" on both the afternoon prior to, and the morning of, the sale. (See Doc. 2, pp. 2, 6, 8.) According to Plaintiffs, despite their tender, officials illegally refused to halt the sale. (See id. at 2-4.) Additionally, both the Complaint and the Motion argue that the sheriff's sale—during which two properties were sold—should have occurred as two separate sales. (See Doc. 2, p. 2; see also Doc. 3.) The Complaint also lodges allegations of corruption against two state judges, whom Plaintiffs assert fixed and refused to overturn the sheriff's sale. (See Doc. 2, p. 5.)
Based on these allegations, it appears that Plaintiffs are attempting to challenge a state foreclosure judgment. But under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, federal district courts have no jurisdiction to review the final judgments of state courts. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine further bars jurisdiction over a federal claim inextricably intertwined with a state court final judgment, such that the federal claim could "succeed only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it." Siegel, 234 F.3d at 1172 (citation omitted).
As Plaintiffs' Motion asks this Court to set aside a foreclosure sale arising from a state judgment,
To the extent the Complaint attempts to assert other claims under the Court's federal question jurisdiction,
Accordingly, it is hereby