Opinion
No. 01 C 5639
October 16, 2001
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before this court is Plaintiff Marcy C. Kreb's pro se complaint alleging a fraudulent interstate marriage and the mishandling of her case in Kane County. For the reasons set forth below, this case is dismissed without notice for lack of federal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
I. Standard
A district court possesses only the jurisdiction conferred to it by Congress. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 86 S. Ct. 803, 15 L.Ed. 2d 769 (1966). Thus, a district court must determine whether it possesses subject matter jurisdiction before it proceeds to the merits of the case. Packard v. Provident Nat'l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1049 (3d Cir.) ("It is axiomatic that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and as such are under a continuing duty to satisfy themselves of their subject matter jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of any case"), cert denied sub nom., Upp v. Mellon Bank, N.A., 510 U.S. 964, 126 L.Ed.2d 373, 114 S.Ct. 440 (1993).
In Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 68 L. Ed. 362, 44 S. Ct. 149 (1923), the Supreme Court held that federal district courts lack jurisdiction to "entertain a proceeding to reverse or modify" a state court judgment. Id. at 416. It is settled that except in rare instances not applicable here, only the United States Supreme Court has the subject matter jurisdiction to review the judgments of state supreme courts. 28 U.S.C. § 1257; see Rooker, 263 U.S. at 416. The Supreme Court subsequently held that a district court has "no authority to review final judgments of a state court in judicial proceedings." District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 75 L. Ed, 2d 206, 103 S.Ct. 1303 (1983).
The Court has indicated that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that "a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court . . ." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06, 129 L.Ed. 2d 775, 114 S.Ct. 2647 (1994). The two-part test of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine involves (1) whether the proceedings in state court were judicial proceedings; and (2) whether the federal claims are so "inextricably intertwined" with those proceedings so as to make review of the claims an impermissible review of state judicial proceedings. Leaf v. Supreme Court of Wisconsin 979 F.2d 589, 597 (7th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 941, 124 L.Ed. 2d 639, 113 S.Ct.2417 (1993).
II. Discussion
Plaintiff, Mary C. Krebs has filed a pro se complaint naming several defendants in the caption. In the body of the complaint she refers to only one of the named defendants, Carl W. Jacobs, who she claims was negligent and caused her to suffer damages in the amount of $250,000. Attached to the complaint are numerous documents which Plaintiff apparently believes substantiates her claim. It appears that Plaintiff believes that a fraudulent marriage certificate evidencing a marriage between Carl Jacobs and Mary Krebs led to a divorce proceeding, a custody award, visitation order, various reports and court orders. Without going into the content of those documents, it is clear that these matters have been litigated extensively in the Circuit Court of Kane County Illinois. Unhappy with the results there, Plaintiff attempts to revisit them in this Court. Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine this is not appropriate. Plaintiff's remedy, if any, is with the state appellate courts.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's pro se complaint is dismissed without notice for lack of federal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.