Opinion
Case Number: 2:13-CV-14381
11-04-2013
AARON D. MITCHELL, Petitioner, v. RANDALL HAAS, Respondent.
HONORABLE GERALD E. ROSEN
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
Michigan state prisoner Aaron D. Mitchell has initiated a proceeding by filing a motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Mitchell is incarcerated pursuant to convictions rendered in Kent County Circuit Court for first-degree murder and unlawfully driving away an automobile. In his motion, Mitchell seeks relief from a state court judgment denying his motion for fraud. The motion for fraud challenged the state court's handling of a collateral appeal of his criminal convictions.
First, Petitioner cannot commence a civil action by filing a motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 provides that a civil action is commenced by filing a complaint. See Jones v. Regional Office BOP, 182 F. App'x 135 (3d Cir. June 5, 2006) (holding that a federal lawsuit cannot be initiated without the filing of a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 3); Gibson v. Department of Corrections, 2007 WL 3170688, *1 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 30, 2007) (holding that a motion is insufficient to commence an action in federal court).
Moreover, Petitioner cannot challenge a state court judgment and sentence pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1; Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) ("[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus"). Rule 60(b) only provides a federal district court with subject matter jurisdiction over requests for relief from the federal district court's own decisions; it does not give the court jurisdiction to relieve a party from state court judgments. See Holder v. Simon, 384 Fed.Appx. 669, 669 (9th Cir. 2010) ("Rule 60(b) does not provide a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over a claim for relief from a state court judgment."); Goodwin v. Home Buying Inv. Co., Inc., 352 F.Supp. 413, 416 (D.D.C.1973) (noting that "reliance" on Rule 60(b) "is misplaced where the judgment from which a party seeks relief was not a judgment of the court in which relief is sought"). The Court lacks authority to review state court judgments and the motion is denied. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983) (explaining that a federal district court has no authority to review state court judgments); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923) (holding that district courts do not have appellate jurisdiction over state courts).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion for Relief from Judgment and the matter is DISMISSED.
Gerald E. Rosen
Chief Judge, United States District Court
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 4, 2013, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Julie Owens
Case Manager, (313) 234-5135