Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 02-2487-KHV
October 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Ali Sherkat, pro se, brings suit against the Johnson County District Court for violation of equal protection and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, plaintiff contends that with no proof or evidence, the Johnson County Court found him guilty of abuse and took away his parenting and visitation rights. See Statement Of Claim attached to Civil Complaint (Doc. #1) filed September 24, 2002. Plaintiff further asserts that the state court's failure to record the abuse protection hearing has jeopardized his right to appeal the state court ruling. See id. Plaintiff asks this Court to dismiss and/or reverse orders of the Johnson County Court and award damages. See Relief and Money Damages attached to Civil Complaint (Doc. #1). Plaintiff also seeks to remove the abuse protection proceeding to this Court. See Notice Of Removal Of Case From State Court (Doc. #3) filed October 3, 2002.
Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), Fed.R.Civ.P., the Court must dismiss an action whenever it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988) (court has duty to determine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte). The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the Court from exercising jurisdiction over a case where the essence of plaintiff's claim requires the Court to review a state court judgment. Dist. Of Columbia Court Of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 543 (10th Cir. 1991). In other words, a party who loses "in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser's federal rights." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994).
Plaintiff challenges the substance and procedure of state court abuse protection proceeding. In order for plaintiff to prevail, the Court would have to find that the state court ruling is invalid. Thus plaintiff's claims are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state case and should be raised in state court. See Facio, 929 F.2d at 543 (constitutional challenge is inextricably intertwined with state court judgment where plaintiff would not have standing to challenge statute other than as applied in his case). For these reasons, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the Court of jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims. See id.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. All pending motions are OVERRULED as moot.