Opinion
Civil Action 2:13-cv-0748
08-05-2013
Norman H. Lawton, Plaintiff v. State of Ohio Supreme Court, et al., Defendants
Judge Frost
Magistrate Judge Abel
Initial Screening Report and Recommendation
Plaintiff Norman H. Lawton brings this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is GRANTED.
This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for screening of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) to identify cognizable claims, and to recommend dismissal of the complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See, McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997). The Magistrate Judge finds that the complaint fails to state claims that can be heard in federal court and, therefore, recommends dismissal of the complaint.
The complaint alleges that the Ohio judiciary negligently misinterpreted Ohio law; Ohio judges favor licensed attorneys in civil domestic relations matter; and pro se litigants are denied their due process right to be heard. The complaint further alleges that defendant Robert B. Hawley engaged in conduct during a domestic relations case in the Franklin County Court of Domestic Relations that caused Lawton financial hardship and defrauded him. Hawley also represents Katherine S. Howard in a 2012 civil suit Lawton filed against her in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court.
When considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe it in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all well-pleaded material allegations in the complaint as true. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Roth Steel Products v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir. 1983). Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for notice pleading. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The United States Supreme Court held in Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197 (June 4, 2007):
. . . Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts showing that the pleader is entitled to relief are not necessary; the statement need only "'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.': Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957).Moreover, pro se prisoner complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, above; Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980).
Analysis. Plaintiff has litigated the claims he seeks to litigate here in state court. Ohio courts of general jurisdiction have the same duty as federal courts to adjudicate constitutional claims presented to them. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 110 S. Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) Having litigated these claims in the Ohio courts, plaintiff cannot now come to the federal courts for a second bite of the apple. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a litigant cannot seek to collaterally attack a state court judgment by simply casting his complaint in the form of a civil rights action. Ritter v. Ross, 992 F.2d 750, 754 (7th Cir. 1993). District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, only the United States Supreme Court by writ of certiorari may review state court decisions. "If the constitutional claims presented to a United States District Court are inextricably intertwined with the state court's denial in a judicial proceeding . . . then the District Court is in essence being called upon to review the state court decision. This the District Court may not do." Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n.6
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the complaint be DISMISSED because plaintiff has already adjudicated the claims pleaded and this court is without jurisdiction to review the adverse state court rulings he seeks to re-litigate here. Defendants do not have to respond to the complaint unless the Court rejects this Report and Recommendation.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees be GRANTED. The United States Marshal is ORDERED to serve upon each defendant named in the complaint a copy of the complaint and a copy of this Order.
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-52 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also, Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of the complaint and this Report and Recommendation to each defendant.
Mark R. Abel
United States Magistrate Judge