Opinion
1:23-cv-00060-JPH-TAB
02-23-2023
STEVEN M. ROSENBAUM, Plaintiff, v. INDIANA PROPERTY REAL ESTATE LLC, Defendant.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
JAMES PATRICK HANLON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Steven Rosenbaum alleges that an Indiana small claims judge's decision to hear his eviction case-over Mr. Rosenbaum's request for a jury trial- violated his constitutional rights. Dkt. 1. But since Mr. Rosenbaum asked this Court to overturn a state court's decision, he was ordered to show cause why his complaint should not be dismissed. Dkt. 5. He has done so, dkt. 6, but since his response does not overcome the legal issues in his complaint, his case must be DISMISSED.
In screening Mr. Rosenbaum's complaint, the Court found that "Mr. Rosenbaum's case squarely challenges a state-court judgement," as "he wants the eviction order to be 'vacated and removed from the court record.'" Dkt. 5 at 4 (citing dkts. 1, 1-1). These claims implicate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal courts from deciding "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced." Id.; J.B. v. Woodard, 997 F.3d 714, 722 (7th Cir. 2021).
Mr. Rosenbaum contends that the Court can hear his case because of the "mistake" exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Dkt. 6 at 1 (citing Resolute Ins. Co. v. State of N.C. , 397 F.2d 586, 589 (4th Cir. 1968); In re Sun Valley Foods Co., 801 F.2d 186, 189 (6th Cir. 1986)). But the Seventh Circuit has rejected such an exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Iqbal v. Patel, 780 F.3d 728, 729 (7th Cir. 2015). Instead, the doctrine "is concerned not with why a state court's judgment might be mistaken . . . but with which federal court is authorized to intervene." Id. (noting that "other circuits disagree on this issue").
Since there is no such exception applicable to this Court, it remains the case that Mr. Rosenbaum's complaint falls squarely under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See dkt. 5. While Mr. Rosenbaum lays out how why he thinks his eviction proceeding was unlawful and unconstitutional, see dkt. 6 at 2, this is not the forum for that grievance; instead, "litigants who feel a state proceeding has violated their constitutional rights must appeal that decision through their state courts and thence to the Supreme Court." Lennon v. City of Carmel, Indiana, 865 F.3d 503, 506 (7th Cir. 2017).
Mr. Rosenbaum's motion to vacate the dismissal of this case, dkt. [6], which the Court construes as a response to its show cause order, is DENIED. This action is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.
Judgment will enter by separate order.
SO ORDERED.