Baumgartner-Jackson et al v. New Orleans City et al
Filing
38
ORDER and REASONS granting 12 Motion to Dismiss Case as stated within document. Signed by Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt on 10/11/2011. (cab) Modified on 10/12/2011 to edit document type (cab).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
OLIVERA BAUMGARTNER-JACKSON
AND ALVIN JACKSON
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 10-3228
THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL.
SECTION “N” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is a motion filed by Defendants seeking dismissal,
pursuant to Rule 12(c) or Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, of Plaintiffs’ claims. See
Rec. Doc. 12. For the reasons stated herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is
GRANTED to the extent that Plaintiffs’ action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
A federal court must grant a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
when it does not have the requisite statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case. See
Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1998) (quoting
Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2nd Cir.1996)). As the parties
invoking federal court jurisdiction, Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that jurisdiction exists.
Dow v. Agrosciences, LLC v. Bates, 332 F.3d 323, 326 (5th Cir. 2003). Among other assertions
made in support of their motion, Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. Having carefully considered applicable law, and the parties’ submissions, including
the opinions of the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, as
well as Plaintiffs’ original and amended petitions, from the related state court action,1 this Court,
being one of limited jurisdiction, finds that it must agree with Defendants’ assertion relative to the
absence of jurisdiction.
Here, Plaintiffs purportedly seek relief based on rights provided by the United States
Constitution. On the showing made, however, the Court can only conclude that Plaintiffs essentially
ask it to review dispositive rulings made by the state courts, and/or consider claims that should have
been fully addressed in state court system, and then, if unsuccessful, presented to the United States
Supreme Court for appropriate remedial action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257. This Court is not authorized
to do either. See District Court of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923).
Specifically, “federal district courts, as courts of original jurisdiction, lack appellate
jurisdiction to review, modify, or nullify final orders of state courts.” Weekly v. Morrow, 204 F.3d
613, 615 (5th Cir. 2000). As explained by the Fifth Circuit in Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d
315, 317 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 (1994), state court errors regarding federal
constitutional issues are “to be reviewed and corrected by the appropriate state appellate court.
Thereafter, recourse at the federal level is limited solely to an application for a writ of certiorari to
the United States Supreme Court.”
Accordingly, “the [subsequent] casting of a complaint in the form of a [federal court]
civil rights action cannot circumvent this rule. . . .” Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 906 (1994). Thus, if a federal district court is confronted with
issues that are “inextricably intertwined” with a state judgment, it is “in essence being called upon
1
See Olivera Baumgartner-Jackson and Alvin Jackson v. The City of New Orleans,
et al., Civil Action No. 08-08511, Division “J”, Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State
of Louisiana.
2
to review the state-court decision,” which the originality of the district court's jurisdiction precludes.
United States v. Shepherd, 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994). Nor does “a petitioner's failure to raise
his constitutional claims in state court [] mean that a United States District Court should have
jurisdiction over the claims.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 4483, n.16. Rather, “[a]fter Feldman, the federal
courts are without jurisdiction over a plaintiff's claims that could have been raised, but were not.”
See Musslewhite v. State Bar of Texas, 32 F.3d 942, 946 n.15 (5th Cir.1994).
Applying the foregoing legal principles to Plaintiff’s action, the Court finds that it
lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s action. As such, Plaintiffs are precluded from pursuing their
claims in this Court.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 11th day of October 2011.
_________________________________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge
3
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?