FOX v. CITY OF EL PASO

Full title: JOHN FOX, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EL PASO, TEXAS, THOMAS J. MAGUIRE, WILLIAM…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division

Date published: Dec 14, 2005

EP-05-CA-0297-FM (W.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2005)

Opinion

EP-05-CA-0297-FM.

December 14, 2005

Memorandum Opinion and Order Dismissing Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

FRANK MONTALVO, District Judge

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Complaint.¹ [Rec. No. 1]. Plaintiff brings this action against the City of El Paso, TX, Thomas J. Maguire, William Stern, Terry Williams and John Doe(s). Plaintiff's Complaint presents two issues: "Issue 1: Whether the Supreme Court of Texas['s][sic] Denial of Plaintiff['s][sic] Petition for Review Violated Due Process of the Law, Contrary to The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution;" and "Issue 2: Whether the El Paso City Attorney's Office Representation of the Defendants in Cause Number 2003-4386 Violates The Texas State Constitution." [Rec. No. 1].

1 Plaintiff sought to amend his complaint by changing the word "Complaint" to "Original Petition" on page 1 of the document. [Rec. No. 11]. Amending Plaintiff's complaint in this manner has no bearing on this Case.

In essence, Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court reversing the State Court of Appeals' Memorandum Opinion dated January 20, 2005² and nullifying its decision by attempting to litigate in federal court the issues previously litigated in state court. [Rec. No. 1].

2 Plaintiff's complaint indicates that the Texas Supreme Court has also dismissed his state court claim although Plaintiff submits decisions from the State Court of Appeals as evidence. This distinction is of no consequence.

"It is axiomatic that a federal district court, as a court of original jurisdiction, lacks appellate jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify a final order of a state court." Lampkin-Asam v. Supreme Court of Florida, 601 F.2d 760 (5th Cir. 1979). "The Court has held on numerous occasions that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction under . . . any theory to reverse or modify the judgments of state courts." Id. (citations omitted). Therefore, the Court on its own initiative is of the opinion that this case should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).