Opinion
Case No. 09-11972.
May 22, 2009
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed this case on May 22, 2009, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and Violation of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639. Plaintiffs concurrently filed a "motion for stay of order of eviction." The Court construes this filing as requesting injunctive relief from a state-court issued order of eviction. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
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 enjoy jurisdiction to enjoin this eviction from proceeding.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, and for the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for stay of order of eviction is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.