Dudley v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing case. The Clerk is directed to close the case. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 5/1/2014. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ERIC DUDLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.

8:14-cv-1030-T-33TGW

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
____________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court sua sponte.

On April

28, 2014, Plaintiff Eric Dudley filed a document titled
“Notice

of

Appeal

to

U.S.

District

Court

of

Florida

Appellant’s Notice of Appeal to the U.S. District Court of
Florida due to Errors under Color of Law and Color of Office
Pursuant to FRCP 12(b)6(1)(2), 42 USC 1983, 18 USC 241 and
242, 60(b) Petition to Dismiss for Lack of Personal and
Subject Matter Jurisdiction Due to Full Settlement of the
Accounting by Private Negotiable Debt Instrument, Pursuant to
HJR-192 of June 5, 1933, P.L. 73-10 In Consideration of U.S.
Constitution Article I, Section 10 Counterclaim.” (Doc. # 1 at
1).
In Dudley’s submission, which the Court construes as a
Complaint,

Dudley

points

to

various

alleged

errors

that

transpired during the course of his state court foreclosure
case.

Among other assertions, Dudley argues: “no original

promissory note was filed in the court to show proof of claim
of

ownership

of

the

property.

A

copy

of

the

Mortgage

instrument is not a negotiable instrument. Hence, because the
bank undoubtedly sold the original the debt is dead and the
mortgage is settled. There is no contract and no mortgage.
This fact was ignored or omitted by the lower courts.” (Doc.
# 1 at 2).

Dudley also claims that “the attorney(s) for the

Bank failed to state a claim under oath but instead presented
hearsay information which is unlawful pursuant to FRCP RULE
802, 12(b)6.” (Id.).

Dudley has attached a number of state

court documents to his pleading, including a Final Judgment of
foreclosure

in

favor

of

JP

Morgan

Chase

Bank

National

Association. (Doc. # 1-1 at 14).
Construing Dudley’s submission liberally due to his pro
se status, the Court reaches the inescapable conclusion that
Dudley’s action is due to be dismissed.

Although Dudley

references several federal statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
the Court’s review of the documents reveals that Dudley seeks
to

appeal

the

decision

foreclosure case.1

of

a

state

court

tribunal

in

a

However, the federal district courts do

1

A mere reference to federal law is not enough to
establish federal question jurisdiction.
A case “arises
under” federal law where federal law creates the cause of
action or where a substantial disputed issue of federal law is
a necessary element of a state law claim. See Franchise Tax
2

not sit in an appellate capacity to review state court
decisions.

If Dudley is dissatisfied with a state court

decision, the appropriate forum for review is the state
appellate court. This Court has no power to review a state
court decision.

See Sitton v. United States, 413 F.2d 1386,

1389

1969)(“The

(5th

Cir.

jurisdiction

possessed

by

the

District Courts of the United States is strictly original.

A

federal district court has no original jurisdiction to reverse
or modify the judgment of a state court.

Federal courts have

no

arm

authority

to

act

as

an

appellate

of

the

state

courts.”); Harper v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 138 F. App’x 130
(11th

Cir.

2005)(“Under

the

Rooker-Feldman

abstention

doctrine, it is well-settled that a federal district court
lacks jurisdiction to review, reverse, or invalidate a final
state court decision.”).
Having determined that the Court lacks jurisdiction over
this case and cannot grant the relief Dudley requests, the
Court dismisses the case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborors Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,
463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1991). In this case, the Complaint does not
identify any federal issue upon which the Court could
predicate the exercise of its federal question jurisdiction.
3

(1)

This case is dismissed.

(2)

The Clerk is directed to Close the Case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 1st

day of May, 2014.

Copies: All parties of record

4