Anglin v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Filing
3
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Anglin's "Appeal" 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The Court shall enter an appropriate judgment. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Gregory F. Van` Tatenhove on 12/19/2013.(CBD)cc: Wesley Anglin
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION
FRANKFORT
WESLEY S. ANGLIN,
Petitioner,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 3: 13-41-GFVT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
Wesley S. Anglin is an inmate incarcerated at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional
Complex in West Liberty, Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, on July 16, 2013, Anglin filed
a document styled “Appeal from Supreme Court of Kentucky Case #2013-SC000241-D’s order
dated May 14, 2013.” [R. 1] In his “Appeal,” Anglin states that on May 14, 2013, the Kentucky
Supreme Court entered an order directing him to pay a $5.00 filing fee and to file nine additional
copies of his motion for discretionary review. The Kentucky Supreme Court later denied both
his motion to reconsider and a subsequent “appeal” of that May 14, 2013, order. [R. 1, p. 2]
Anglin then initiated this action by filing his “Appeal” in which he asks this Court to enter an
order compelling the Kentucky Supreme Court to vacate its order requiring him to pay a $5.00
filing fee and to provide it with additional copies of his motion. [R. 1, p. 2]
The Court conducts a preliminary review of Anglin’s pleading pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A. A district court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious,
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 607-08 (6th Cir.
1997). The Court evaluates Anglin’s complaint under a more lenient standard because he is not
represented by an attorney. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Burton v. Jones, 321
F.3d 569, 573 (6th Cir. 2003). At this stage, the Court accepts his factual allegations as true, and
his legal claims are liberally construed in his favor. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555-56 (2007).
The Court concludes that Anglin’s “Appeal” must be dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and as legally frivolous. There is no right of appeal from a
state supreme court order to a federal district court. A dissatisfied party may seek direct review
only by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, 28
U.S.C. § 1257, and an action filed in a federal district court which effectively seeks collateral
review of a state court order violates the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291 (2005); In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542, 548 (6th Cir. 2009);
Berry v. Schmitt, 688 F.3d 290, 298-300 (6th Cir. 2012).
Anglin’s “Appeal” would also fail as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Anglin
named the Commonwealth of Kentucky as the defendant in this action, but the several States are
immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 687-88 (1993) (“Absent waiver, neither a State nor agencies
acting under its control may be subject to suit in federal court.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). They are also not “persons” subject to suit under § 1983. Will v. Mich. Dep’t
of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989); Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994).
Anglin also fails to articulate any basis in federal law for his sought-after reversal of the
Kentucky Supreme Court’s order, and his complaint therefore fails to satisfy the minimum
pleading requirements for a civil complaint filed in federal court. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
Anglin’s “Appeal” [R. 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2.
The Court shall enter an appropriate judgment.
3.
This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.
This the 19th day of December, 2013.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?