Opinion
CV-20-01491-PHX-DLR
10-11-2022
Rune Kraft, Plaintiff, v. County of Maricopa, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
DOUGLAS L. RAYES, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 25, 2022, the Court issued an order that, among other things, dismissed Plaintiff's case. (Doc. 96.) In relevant part, the Court concluded that Plaintiff's case is barred by issue preclusion because his claims are predicated on the belief that the Maricopa County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to enter a foreclosure judgment, but that jurisdictional issue was already litigated in state court and resolved against Plaintiff. This Court is not a state court of appeals. Consequently, Plaintiff cannot now bring claims that necessarily would require the Court to revisit that state court judgment. The Court also found that Plaintiff had failed to properly serve some of the defendants.
Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed two motions: a motion for amended and additional findings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(b) (Doc. 97) and a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) (Doc. 99), both of which essentially seek to relitigate the Court's prior orders and accuse the Court of being part of a conspiracy against Plaintiff. Neither motion is meritorious. Nothing in Plaintiff's motions calls into question the Court's conclusion that the Maricopa County Superior Court's jurisdiction to enter a foreclosure judgment against him was previously litigated and resolved against Plaintiff in state court, precluding him from relitigating that issue here. As previously noted, this Court is not a state court of appeals. The state court's resolution of the jurisdictional question is final and because Plaintiff's claims here all are based on the premise that the Maricopa County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction, he necessarily cannot succeed on them.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Rule 52(b) and 59(e) motions (Docs. 97 and 99) are DENIED. This case remains closed.