Marinov et al v. Wake Robin Estates II Homeowners Association Inc

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER, dismissing case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). ***Civil Case Terminated. (cc: Plaintiffs) Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 7/30/12. (mlc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
VASSIL M. MARINOV
and VENETKA V. MARINOVA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WAKE ROBIN ESTATES II
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 4:12-CV-040-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
The Plaintiffs, Vassil M. Marinov and Venetka V. Marinova, proceeding pro se in this
matter, bring this case to overturn a ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court. They filed a Pro Se
Complaint [ECF No. 1] and a Petition for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 2] on
July 18, 2012. “A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint,
however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and citations
omitted). Nevertheless, “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action .
. . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The authority of federal district courts to review state court judgments and related claims
is strictly limited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v.
Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lower federal courts lack subject-matter
jurisdiction when, after state proceedings have ended, a losing party in state court
files suit in federal court complaining of an injury caused by the state-court judgment
and seeking review and rejection of that judgment. In determining whether a federal
plaintiff seeks review of a state-court judgment, we ask whether the injury alleged

resulted from the state-court judgment itself. If it does, Rooker-Feldman bars the
claim.
Beth-El All Nations Church v. City of Chi., 486 F.3d 286, 292 (7th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine “precludes lower federal court jurisdiction over claims seeking
review of state court judgments or over claims ‘inextricably intertwined’ with state court
judgments.” Remer v. Burlington Area Sch. Dist., 205 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing Long
v. Shorebank Dev. Corp., 182 F.3d 548, 554 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Rooker, 263 U.S. at 415–16,
and Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482 n.16)). This is such a case.
The Plaintiffs disagree with the ruling of the Indiana Supreme Court in which it affirmed
rulings of the lower state courts. This Court lacks jurisdiction to overturn this ruling by the
Indiana Supreme Court or the rulings by the lower state courts. In our federal system of
government, only the United States Supreme Court has that authority. Because this Court lacks
jurisdiction over the claims brought the Plaintiffs, it is legally frivolous and must be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
SO ORDERED on July30, 2012.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann
THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORT WAYNE DIVISION