Opinion
Civil Action No. 17-12106-FDS
01-29-2018
WAYNE A. SILVA, Plaintiff, v. SARAH A. THORNTON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER SAYLOR, J.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment.
I. Factual Background
In a memorandum and order dated January 3, 2018, the Court ordered that this action be dismissed. The Court explained that the complaint of plaintiff Wayne Silva had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the complaint did not state a cause of action, and, to the extent a claim could be discerned, the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. It appeared that the Silva was attempting to relitigate a state court case in which he was the plaintiff, and that was decided against him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court dismissed this action sua sponte and before any summonses had issued.
Plaintiff has now moved under Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from judgment. He contends that federal-question subject matter jurisdiction exists and that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is immaterial. He also appears to contend that dismissal was improper because he had requested a jury trial. He states that he "must remove" his state-court case.
II. Discussion
The motion does not set forth any basis for relief under Rule 60. Even if the claims asserted in this Court arose under federal law, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine still bars the action. The removal statute does not provide a separate basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (providing for removal of "any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction" (emphasis added)). Further, only a defendant can remove a case from state court to federal court. See id. (providing for the removal of an action "by the defendant or the defendants"). And a plaintiff's demand for a jury trial does not affect the jurisdictional question, and does not immunize an action from dismissal prior to trial.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
1. The motion for relief from judgment is DENIED.
2. Except for the filing of a Notice of Appeal, Silva is prohibited from filing any other papers in this action. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions. If Silva attempts to file a document in violation of this order, the Clerk shall return the paper to Silva and make a notation of the same on the public docket. This order is made in light of Silva's history of filing numerous post-judgment motions that are without merit. See, e.g., Silva v. United States of America, 07-11133-DPW (D. Mass.) (documents filed after July 2, 2007); Silva Wayne Anthony v. City of New Bedford, C.A. No. 01-10918-RWZ (D. Mass) (documents filed after November 6, 2001).
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor IV
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge Dated: January 29, 2018