Lapinski et al v. Leech et al

Filing 9

ORDER -- Plaintiff's "Refiled Amended Complaint[] Per Order" (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 7/19/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JAMES F. LAPINKSI; and PATRICIA
LAPINKSI,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 6:17-cv-1280-Orl-37GJK

ANDREW LEECH; PAMELA
DECORAH; SANDRA C. UPCHURCH;
CENTERSTATE BANK OF FLORIDA,
N.A.; STEVE MESSINGER; JESSICA
GALLO; KATHLEEN WEAVER;
ZACKARY GLASER; COUNTY OF
FLAGLER, FLORIDA; CAPTAIN
ALLEN; RICK STALEY; DAVID W.
ADAMS; AARON THOMAS; and
REBECCA THOMAS,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
ORDER
In this action, Plaintiffs seek relief from a sheriff’s sale in which two of their
formerly-owned properties were sold. (Docs. 1, 2, 8.) Among other perceived wrongs,
Plaintiffs: (1) attack the propriety of the sheriff’s sale; (2) fault officials for refusing to halt
or delay the sale once Plaintiffs tendered money to retain the properties at the eleventh
hour; and (3) accuse multiple state judges of fixing the sale and refusing to correct errors
therein. (See Doc. 8.) On June 14, 2017, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ initial complaint for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal
jurisdiction over claims: (1) in which a federal court is asked to review a state court final
-1-

judgment; and (2) inextricably intertwined with state court final judgments, such that a
federal court would have to adjudge whether the state court wrongly decided the issues
before it. (Id. at 3–4 (citing various cases).)
Plaintiffs submitted an amended complaint on July 18, 2017 (Doc. 8), but this
pleading fares no better. Indeed, the errors that Plaintiffs attempt to attack remain
inextricably intertwined with state court foreclosure judgments and the attendant writs
of execution. The operative Complaint attempts to disclaim the application of the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine on the ground that: (1) Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeals
“has never stated any legal reasoning nor cases re: [Plaintiffs’] appeals” in the last ten
years; and (2) the Supreme Court of Florida refuses to judge an appeal without DCA cases
to deny. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs also argue that this action should be a criminal case of civil
theft, fraud, corruption, collusion and racketeering. (Id.) Yet they have not cited any
authority that would give this Court jurisdiction even if their allegations are true.
As a final matter, the Court has gone to great lengths to try make sense of the
Complaint. Despite Plaintiffs attempts to plead federal causes of actions, they have failed
to state ultimate facts demonstrating a viable cause of action. The Court formerly advised
Plaintiffs of the free legal clinic available to pro se litigants, but it is clear that they have
not taken advantage of this resource.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Refiled Amended Complaint[] Per Order” (Doc. 8) is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, once again, for lack of jurisdiction. The Court will
allow Plaintiffs one final opportunity to amend their Complaint if they so choose.
Plaintiffs are forewarned that a subsequent attempt to attack state court judgments, or
-2-

matters inextricably intertwined with those judgments, will result in dismissal without
leave to amend.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on July 19, 2017.

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-