From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Edison

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 11, 2010
Case No.: 1:09 CV 2627 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2010)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:09 CV 2627.

January 11, 2010


MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER


Plaintiff pro se Diana Williams brings this action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendants Ohio Edison, Weltman, Weinberg, and Reis, Donald Mauser and Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John P. O'Donnell. She alleges that she filed a case in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court that was wrongfully dismissed as result of a conspiracy conducted by the defendants.

While pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the district court may dismiss an action sua sponte if the complaint is so "implausible, attenuated, unsubstantial, frivolous, devoid of merit, or no longer open to discussion" as to deprive the court of jurisdiction. Apple v. Glenn, 183 F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974)). For the following reasons, the Court finds that the claims asserted in this action satisfies these criterion.

United States District Courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions even if those challenges allege that the state court's action was unconstitutional. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n. 16 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923). Federal appellate review of state court judgments can only occur in the United States Supreme Court, by appeal or by writ of certiorari. Id. Under this principle, generally referred to as the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, a party losing his case 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 party's claim that the state judgment itself violates his or her federal rights. Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005-06 (1994). Federal jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely by couching the claims in terms of a civil rights action. Lavrack v. City of Oak Park, 1999 WL 801562 * 2 (6th Cir. Sept. 28, 1999); see also, Valenti v. Mitchell, 962 F.2d 288, 296 (3d Cir. 1992).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit uses a two pronged inquiry when assessing whether Rooker-Feldman bars a particular claim or cause of action. First, in order for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply to a claim presented in federal district court, the issue before the court must be inextricably intertwined with the claim asserted in the state court proceeding. Catz v. Chalker, 142 F.3d 279, 293 (6th Cir. 1998); see Tropf v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., 289 F.3d 929, 937 (6th Cir. 2002). "Where federal relief can only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court was wrong, it is difficult to conceive the federal proceeding as, in substance, anything other than a prohibited appeal of the state court judgment Catz, 142 F.3d at 293. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies when the party losing his case in state court files suit in federal district court seeking redress for an injury allegedly caused by the state court's decision itself. Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853, 857-59 (6th Cir. 2006). Second, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars a district court from exercising jurisdiction where the claim is a specific grievance that the law was invalidly or unconstitutionally applied in plaintiff's particular case rather than a general constitutional challenge to the governing state law. Id.; Tropf, 289 F.3d at 937.

This action concerns a ruling made in a state court case. A federal courts cannot act as a court of appeals as to a state judge's decision.

Further, Plaintiff has included Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge John P. O'Donnell as a Defendant. It is well established that judges are immune from liability for actions taken within the scope of their official duties. Pierson v. Ray, 387 U.S. 547 (1967). This is true even if a judge acts erroneously, corruptly, or in excess of jurisdiction. Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978). When the function complained of is truly a judicial act, judicial immunity applies. Despite plaintiff's assertion to the contrary, there are no facts alleged reasonably suggesting defendant acted outside the scope of his official duties. Yarbrough v. Garrett, 579 F.Supp.2d 856, 860 (E.D. Mich., 2008) (citing Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994). Judge O'Donnell was acting within the scope of his official duties in dismissing Plaintiff's court case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is granted. This action is dismissed. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Williams v. Edison

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
Jan 11, 2010
Case No.: 1:09 CV 2627 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2010)
Case details for

Williams v. Edison

Case Details

Full title:DIANA WILLIAMS Plaintiff, v. OHIO EDISON, et al. Defendants

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jan 11, 2010

Citations

Case No.: 1:09 CV 2627 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2010)