Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-12012-GAO.
September 11, 2007
OPINION AND ORDER
This is one of several loosely related pro se actions filed in this Court by the plaintiff Alphonse R. Ferent, Jr. Although the complaint is not entirely coherent, it appears that the plaintiff intends to present the following claims: (1) that various state judges made incorrect decisions in cases in which Mr. Ferent was a party; (2) that various private law firms engaged in wrongful behavior in connection with pending or contemplated litigation in the state courts; and (3) that the Attorney General of the Commonwealth and the District Attorney for Norfolk County failed to investigate certain civil rights violations by the plaintiff. All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the various claims for want of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure of the complaint to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. After review, the respective motions to dismiss (dkt nos. 10, 17, 18, 25, and 27) are GRANTED.
This Court has no jurisdiction to review the decisions of state court judges. Under the so-called "Rooker-Feldman" doctrine, federal district courts do not have jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or otherwise, over "cases brought by state-court losers [such as Ferent] complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). That is the nature of the complaint's apparent allegations against the defendants who are state judges, and therefore no claim within this Court's jurisdiction is made against them. The state defendants' brief suggests additional reasons why the complaint should be dismissed, which are also valid, but in the circumstances need not be discussed.
The claims sought to be presented against the four named private law firms are sketchy and obscure. The firm Pierce, Davis and Perritano, LLP, is said to have entered "perjured/hearsay evidence and totally ignored the plaintiff's third party Engineer certified evidence on Noise Pollution violations" in a state judicial proceeding. Comp. at 5. The firm Ficksman Conley, LLP, representing a party sued by Ferent, is alleged to have "violated the pro se plaintiff's Constitutional and Civil Rights to proper legal procedure and trial by not allowing a Continuance for a Medical Tribunal and should be held criminally and financially responsible." Comp. at 6. The firm Kopelman Paige is said to have "refused to accept the Summons and Verified Complaint" in a case commenced by Ferent against that firm. Id. The claim intended to be asserted against the last firm sued here, Peabody Arnold, is unclear, because the only reference in the complaint to that firm is to note that one of its lawyers represented Kopelman Paige in the case referred to in the preceding sentence. It is absolutely clear that these allegations do not state, or even vaguely suggest, any claim arising under federal law. Whether there is in them the germ of any state law claim need not be decided, because there is no basis for this Court's jurisdiction over any such claim should it exist, the parties all being citizens of Massachusetts, for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
Finally, there is no viable federal claim outlined against the Attorney General or the District Attorney for failing to investigate potential charges against others that the plaintiff wants them to investigate.
The complaint is DISMISSED.
In light of the dismissal, all other pending motions are MOOT.
It is SO ORDERED.