Opinion
Case No. 2:02-CV-664
September 20, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's September 18, 2002. "Notice of Request for TRO Hearing on September 18 at 9AM to Stay Enforcement and Execution of Habere Facias to 52 N. Columbia Avenue, Scheduled September 25, 2002. (Doc. # 14).
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, originally filed this action on July 5, 2002 seeking to prevent the Defendants from foreclosing on realty which Plaintiff alleges to own. On July 15, 2002, Plaintiff filed what she refers to as the "July 8 Motion for Injunction" which, in essence, challenges a decision made by the Tenth District Ohio Court of Appeals. On August 5, 2002 Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Add Parties." In the motion, Plaintiff purports to remove the state court action to this Court.
On September 11, 2002, Plaintiff requested that this Court have an immediate hearing to prevent "any action or order issued against the Plaintiff's minor children and specifically any order to threaten their removal from custody or the residence where they reside with the Plaintiff"
Plaintiff now asks the Court "for a TRO to deny Tuckerman Home Group execution of the Habere Facias on the basis of error by the Franklin County Common Pleas Clerk of Courts to acknowledge the removal of the state case to federal district court and the motions pending before Judge Bessey, the assigned Judge in the state case. . . ."
This Court is without jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiff's requests. The Court reiterates its statements from its September 12, 2002 Order denying Plaintiff's request for an emergency hearing on issued of custody of her children:
Although Plaintiff purports to remove the state court action and the parties involved to this Court, the action is not removable under 28 U.s.c. § 1441. Furthermore, this Court cannot sit in review of state court proceedings. Under the Rooker Feldman doctrine, a federal court is without jurisdiction to entertain a claim alleging error in a state court decision. See Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Thus, Plaintiff's attempts to invoke this Court's jurisdiction are without merit.
(Doc. # 12 at 2).
Since this Court is without jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff's September 18, 2002 Motion, the motion ( Doc. #14) is DENIED.