Bowman v. Cortellessa et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Plaintiff's 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. (2) Bowman's 1 Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (3) The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on February 21, 2012. (AWD)cc: Plaintiff via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON

V. JANET BOWMAN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT E. CORTELLESSA, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
*****

Civil Action No. 12-47-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

*****

*****

V. Janet Bowman, the pro se plaintiff, has filed a civil
complaint against her former spouse, Robert E. Cortellessa, and
Robert S. Silverthorn, the attorney who represented Bowman in the
1984 divorce proceeding,

Cortellessa v. Cortellessa, Woodford

Circuit Court Case No. 84-CI-191.
to proceed in forma pauperis.

Bowman has also filed a motion

In her Complaint, Bowman challenges

the division of marital property ordered in that 1984 Woodford
Circuit Court divorce proceeding.
The Court will grant Bowman’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis but will dismiss her Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and enter Judgment in favor of the defendants.
FED. R. CIV. P 12(h)(3).

See

Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,1 a

federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain a

1

See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460
U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303(1983), and Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149 (1923).

collateral challenge to a state court divorce proceeding. See Evans
v.

Franklin

County

Court

of

Common

Pleas,

Div.

of

Domestic

Relations, 66 F. App’x. 586,588 (6th Cir. 2003).
Bowman’s

current

allegations

against

Cortellessa

and

Silverthorn stem from her dissatisfaction with the outcome of her
Kentucky state court divorce proceeding, and amount to nothing more
than an effort to challenge, overturn, or effectively appeal the
decision(s) rendered in that divorce proceeding.
the Court must dismiss Bowman’s Complaint.

For that reason,

See Doscher v. Menifee

Circuit Court, 75 F. App’x 996, 997 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming sua
sponte

dismissal

of

complaint

for

lack

of

subject

matter

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff V. Janet Bowman’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis, [R. 2], is GRANTED;
2.

Bowman’s Complaint, [R. 1], is DISMISSED for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction; and
3.

The Court will enter an appropriate Judgment.

This the 21st day of February, 2012.

2