Opinion
Case No. 11-10166.
January 21, 2011
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this case on January 12, 2011, requesting the Court to set aside a sheriff's deed relating to real property located at 17350 Pennington Drive, Detroit, Michigan 48221, for violating the statutory requirements of a public sale of Plaintiff's property pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.3216. On January 12, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [dkt 3]. On January 13, 2010, Judge Murphy denied Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because the Court lacked federal jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The next day Plaintiff filed an amended motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [dkt 5]. In his amended motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue a temporary restraining order and enjoin Defendant from evicting Plaintiff from his residence. The writ of eviction in question was executed by the state district court on December 15, 2010.
This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Judge Stephen J. Murphy. On January 19, 2010, this case was reassigned to the Honorable Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff.
II. ANALYSIS
Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to directly review the judgments of state courts. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Courts have consistently applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to claims requesting review of a state court's eviction and foreclosure proceedings. See, e.g., Austin v. Countrywide Home Loans, No. 08-15127, 2008 WL 4954617, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 18, 2008); Berry v. Ocwen Loan Servs., LLC, No. 08-13760, 2008 WL 4648123, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2008); Jones v. Heartland Home Fin. Corp., No. 07-14398, 2008 WL 4561693, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 10, 2008). Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin this eviction from proceeding. As such, Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief is denied.
Furthermore, any of Plaintiff's current claims which seek to disturb the state court judgments of foreclosure, possession, or eviction are subject to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Upon reviewing Plaintiff's pleadings, the Court is unable to discern whether it has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's case. Thus, Plaintiff is to show cause why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff's case due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction [dkt 5] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff SHOW CAUSE, in writing, within ten (10) days after entry of this order, as to why the Court should not dismiss Plaintiff's case due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Failure to comply with this order will result in the Court dismissing this case. Plaintiff's response shall contain specific and accurate legal support, including pinpoint citations to authority relied on and shall be limited to ten pages and comply with E.D. Mich. L.R. 5.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2011